Pope Benedict to be Deposed

The most evil inspired man in the world, attorney Jeffrey Anderson, plans to “sue the sh-t out of [the Catholic Church] everywhere”. Because the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the Vatican, a court case will move forward allowing for the Vatican to be sued.

“I have known for 25 years that all roads lead to Rome,” said Jeff Anderson, the Minnesota attorney who represents the plaintiff. “This is the beginning for us of a new journey, a uniquely difficult odyssey.”

Anderson, who has represented hundreds of abuse victims and has tried for years to sue the Vatican, said he hoped to persuade a judge that he should be allowed to depose Vatican officials.

Jeffrey Lena, the American attorney for the Holy See, argued the Vatican is not responsible for individual priests in dioceses, saying the existence of the priest in the case “was unknown to the Holy See until after all the events in question.”

The original lawsuit, John V. Doe v. Holy See, was filed in 2002 by a Seattle-area man who said the Rev. Andrew Ronan repeatedly molested him in the late 1960s.

“The Holy See does not pay the salary of the priest, or benefits of the priest, or exercise day-to-day control over the priest, and any of the other factors indicating the presence of an employment relationship,” Lena said.

Saint Paul, Minnesota attorney Jeffrey Anderson also added that he will depose Pope Benedict once the opportunity presents itself.

23 Responses to Pope Benedict to be Deposed

  • Don the Kiwi says:

    The guy is a sad-ass low grade attorney seeking notoriety. It is obvious that he does not understand the structure of the Church. I have listened to him on radio, and sounds as he looks.

  • Karl says:

    While the motive for this may be troubling, there simply must be accountability for actions taken by clerics, particularly when these actions are not in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church and the local ordinary has either refused to act or simply ignored serious accusations.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    The ambulance chaser can hope all he wants to depose the Pope but it is never going to happen. I have been involved in litigation for 28 years in thousands of cases and I am quite familiar with how discovery in a civil case is performed. No judge in his right mind will approve the compelling of a head of a foreign state for a deposition, and no appellate court would uphold an order requiring such a deposition if a trial judge were crazy enough to issue such an order.

  • T. Shaw says:

    Whew!

    I thought you meant the Obama regime would invade the Vatican, remove the Pope, and replace with Dougie Kmiec.

    I’m been deposed a few times. It isn’t fun.

  • Tito Edwards says:

    I understand the deposition of Pope Benedict is very slim, though I do want to shed light on this character for the simple reason that there are people out there that act as evil incarnate (the man isn’t evil, just that his actions are evil).

  • bearing says:

    “Most evil man in the world?”

    I assume you are exaggerating for comic effect?

    I’m not sure this kind of hyperbole is a good idea when you are writing about anything remotely related to sex abuse cases. People who are angry because they’ve been wronged are following this story.

    I like this blog, but I continue to be disturbed by more than one contributor’s insistence on describing individual human beings with dehumanizing adjectives that ought better be applied to their behaviors.

  • Tito Edwards says:

    Bearing,

    I appreciate your concern and your loyalty to this website.

    I assure you I don’t throw that term around casually. In fact, I can’t remember ever describing someone like that on TAC outside of Mr. Jeffrey Anderson [I changed one word in my post. No one is actually evil, though they can be inspired to act as such].

    But your point is duly taken. I agree about the hyperbole and I personally will be more prudent in my own postings.

  • RL says:

    Mr. Smith,

    I have no idea what the merits of the case presented to the SCOTUS are or what the *right* decision would be, but I could understand if any or all the Catholic justices passed on hearing it. If that would be the right thing to do if the case was concerning the Prime Minister of England or Kim Jong-il it would be the right thing to regarding the Pope. I’m doubtful refusing to hear this case was the right thing to do, but I appreciate the integrity and sound thinking that five of the four Catholic Justices bring to the court and wouldn’t expect them to place personal loyalties before their integrity as jurists. That’s what sets them apart and why they’re right for the job.

  • So a Supreme Court that has a majority of Catholic justices allows the Vatican to be sued in the US?

    Even taking it that the decision was primarily the result of what the justices thought of the Church (rather than the merits of the case) that still leaves Anthony “the weather vane” Kennedy as the deciding vote, Catholic or not.

    Honestly, though, I’m quite unclear what a ruling like this means. The only instances I’m aware of in which people have sued foreign countries in US courts have been in reparation for terrorism or government property confiscation by the foreign government. Here we have someone trying to insist that the Vatican itself is responsible for whether or not priests were disciplined, removed from ministry, etc.

    It seems at least moderate unlikely that there’d be any merit found in an attempt to sue the Vatican. Any of the lawyers here able to fill us in a bit?

  • jh says:

    I would caution people not to read too much long term into this. THe reporting on this was pretty bad., Including that the Supreme Court “Confirmed” the lower court ruling. They did no such thing. The Supreme Court decides not to take cases for a whole bunch of reason and is foolhardy to try to divine those reasons.

    Mr Anderson has cases all the place as do other Lawyers. The Supreme Court could be waiting for all we know for their to be a split in the circuits till they take this matter up

  • Pinky says:

    My gut says that a deposition would be a good thing. I don’t think it will happen, but it would probably help if the world heard about the extent of Ratzinger’s/Benedict’s efforts against pedophilia.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Depositions don’t work like that Pinky. Consider the most savage cross examination in the world. That is what the Pope would be subjected to in a deposition.

  • c matt says:

    There is a long road between suing the Vatican (whatever that means) and deposing the Pope. Big companies get sued all the time, yet their CEO’s and other top executives rarely get deposed.

  • Pinky says:

    Donald, we’re supposed to lay down our lives for the faith, even us laymen. Popes have often been called to martyrdom, as have more bishops than I could count. I wouldn’t wish Benedict to go through a tough deposition, but it’s part of the job. An onerous, prying public spectacle could actually turn people’s hearts back to confidence in the Church, and ultimately back to Christ.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    “Donald, we’re supposed to lay down our lives for the faith, even us laymen. Popes have often been called to martyrdom, as have more bishops than I could count. I wouldn’t wish Benedict to go through a tough deposition, but it’s part of the job.”

    Martyrdom is one think Pinky, being made to look like a lying scumbag is another. A skillful attorney can make almost anyone look like a lying scumbag in a deposition.

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    An attorney of my acquaintance used to use the expression “You can sue the Pope for bastardry” as a way of saying that anyone could sue another person for any cause, no matter how ridiculous or improbable, if they could get an attorney to file the suit. Well, it appears that life is now imitating cliche.

  • Samwise says:

    This is not going to happen…just imagine, this lawyer who is really an ambulance chaser and who has said indicated he really wants to sue the Catholic Church…imagining all the money he will amass from such a lawsuit…now, the Pope refuses to come to the United States..what is this lawyer going to do? Send troops to the Vatican? Pope Benedict has done more than anyone to address this crisis of sexual abuse by member of the Catholic Church (who else has done anything like this in response to sexual abuse in other institutions?)…anyway, this lawyer fellow is in way over his head…and he is in not for the victims but to line his pockets … Jesus said right from the beginning that scandals would come but that His Church would last….

  • Daishin says:

    Wasn’t Pope Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Faith, responsible for overseeing the Church’s tactical strategy toward sex abuse cases by priests? Wasn’t he an advocate of a “delay until the Statute of Limitations has expired” strategy? Joseph Ratzinger’s strategy was to obstruct justice all over the world. This man is a criminal and should be brought to justice…he should be tried, convicted and put in prison. There have been other corrupt popes in the Catholic Church but none in recent memory. This is a great sin at the highest levels of the Church.

  • Daishin,

    Your claims are almost exactly the opposite of the truth. Throughout most of the period of the scandals, these accusations did not fall under the control of the CDF. Ratzinger asked for that brief when the scandal blew up in the US, and once he got began personally going through the files. It was when his department took control that the cases really started moving in regards to discipline and helping the secular authorities pursue justice. Far from being an advocate of “delay until the Statute of Limitations has expired”, he pushed to get accusations into the open and to ignore the statue of limitations even where it applied.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .