truesee's Blog

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.

The use of the defence raises further questions about the church's willingness to accept culpability for abuse. It follows a ing report into abuse at the diocese of Cloyne in Ireland which prompted the Irish president, Mary McAleese, to call on leaders of the church "to urgently reflect on how, by coherent and effective action, it can restore public trust and confidence in its stated objective of putting children first".

Those planning to bring claims in relation to the high court case expressed dismay. "As children, we weren't given an innocent, carefree and safe environment," said one. "We weren't given a peaceful structure in which to grow and develop normally. By some miracle, some of us are still here to voice the words of so many who can't. Only a small number of victims ever come forward. The full potential of who we could have been as adults has been stolen."

The church's defence has been condemned by lawyers. "I think the Catholic church's attempt to avoid responsibility for the abhorrent actions of one of its priests is nothing short of scandalous," said Richard Scorer of the law firm Pannone, which specialises in abuse cases. "The Catholic church would be better served by facing up to its responsibilities rather than trying to hide behind spurious employment law arguments."

The ruling is being made as part of a preliminary hearing into the case of "JGE", who claims to have been sexually abused while a six-year-old resident at The Firs, a children's home in Portsmouth run by an order of nuns, the English Province of Our Lady of Charity. "If we fail, it would mean that no other victims of Catholic priests would be able to be compensated," said Tracey Emmott of Emmott Snell, a specialist in working with sexual abuse claims who is representing JGE.

JGE alleges that she was sexually abused by Father Wilfred Baldwin, a priest of the Roman Catholic diocese of Portsmouth and its "vocations director", who regularly visited The Firs during the 70s. Her legal team claim the nuns were negligent and in breach of duty, and that the diocese was liable for Baldwin's alleged abuse as he was a Catholic priest engaged within the work of the diocese.

Previous hearings in the House of Lords and the court of appeal relating to other church organisations have found that ministers should be treated as employees. But there has been no judgment yet on whether the relationship between a Catholic priest and his bishop is akin to an employment relationship.

"They claim that the relationship between the bishop of the diocese and the parish priest in question does not amount to anything akin to a relationship of employment, and therefore there cannot be any 'vicarious liability' for the priest's acts," Emmott said.

"That is to say, whatever sexual abuse their priests might commit, it is not their responsibility. They are absolved of blame. We need to show that, while Father Baldwin wasn't strictly an employee of the church, he was acting on the bishop's behalf and that the bishop clearly had a degree of control over his activities."

Criminal proceedings against Baldwin, who was the subject of a police investigation, concluded when he died of a heart attack in 2006.

(Courtesy: Jesse Anderson)

Obama could be comeback kid if he mimics Clinton

For one, they start out at almost exactly the same point. Clinton's job approval rating in the Gallup poll was 46 percent in the first week of November 1994. Obama's job approval rating was 45 percent in the first week of November 2010.

Starting from the same place, the lines then follow a comparable course. Clinton had a bumpy ride in the months after defeat, but his rating never fell below 40 percent and never rose above 51 percent. Obama has been doing much the same thing; in the latest Gallup survey, he is at 42 percent.

A turning point for Clinton came in late 1995 and early 1996, when he faced off against then-Speaker Newt Gingrich and congressional Republicans in a budget fight that resulted in two government shutdowns. Clinton's ratings were in the low 40s when the fight began. When he emerged victorious -- at least in the press and in some public opinion -- his numbers began a slow climb. In March 1996, Clinton was at 52 percent approval. In June '96 he was at 58 percent. In August he hit 60 percent. And in November he was re-elected.

Of course, Gingrich and the Republicans were re-elected, too; pundits who describe the '95-'96 shutdowns as a disaster for the GOP often neglect to mention that. So in a narrowly political sense, both Clinton and the GOP won the shutdown. The question now is whether Obama and his Republican adversaries might do the same after their current fight over the debt ceiling.

In his drive for re-election, Clinton needed Republican help, not just as a foil but as a source of policy initiatives. For a man who announced "the era of big government is over," Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming toward both balanced budget legislation and welfare reform -- now seen as key accomplishments of his presidency. Republicans did the dragging, and when Clinton moved the GOP's way, his prospects improved.

The public also found that it liked divided government. Republicans were elected in 1994 because voters wanted to place a check on Clinton. Republicans were elected in 2010 because voters wanted to place a check on Obama. With that check in place, Obama might find that if he, like Clinton, were to move the GOP's way, his prospects might improve.

Of course, there are plenty of reasons why it might not work. In November 1996, unemployment was 5.4 percent. It's 9.2 percent now and is predicted to be at 8 percent or above in November '12. "The economic situation is so dramatically different," says a Republican strategist who is skeptical of the Obama-GOP win-win scenario. "You have anemic economic growth, you have unemployment that has been above 8 percent for more than 20 months, and you have a deficit that is more than a trillion dollars. Clinton had an economic strength that Obama doesn't have."

In the end, Obama might be doomed whatever he does. But as his campaign aides have pointed out, he's betting that voters will judge him on whether they feel he's taking the economy in the right direction, not whether he has reached any particular point. It's a pretty thin hope, but it might be a little more realistic if voters perceive him working with Republicans to go in that right direction.

To many Republicans these days, Obama resembles Jimmy Carter more than Bill Clinton. Certainly Obama's dour, eat-your-peas lecturing evokes the worst of Carter's sanctimoniousness. But Obama's popularity is nowhere near as low as Carter's was at the same point in their presidencies.

According to newly compiled figures from the Gallup organization, Obama's average job approval in the most recent quarter -- his 10th quarter in office -- was 46.8 percent. Carter's was an astonishing 31 percent. Obama is more in the range of Ronald Reagan (44.4 percent) and Clinton (49.3) at that point in their presidencies.

Both won re-election. As they seek to win the White House themselves, Republicans can only hope that Obama is not as savvy -- or as flexible -- as his predecessors.