TTSOML #88: Vatican II And Structural Changes To Supervisory

I wondered why I had so many problems obtaining even the simplest things, but because I told Christa everything, it isn't hard to see in retrospect.

I was reading these books, with the stamp and seal of the Roman Catholic Church, at Lewis & Clark Law Library, on interpretation of Canon law. I was specifically examining how it applied to the secular tort of vicarious liability. I told Christa about this and how I was trying to order more of the volumes from the Canon Law Society Of America, and she asked questions about which volumes and what books. When I tried to order from the Society, I was told they were all out of print or otherwise unavailable.

The ones which were not as important, were unavailable. I already had quite a lot of information, including some encyclicals written by the pope himself, on the very topic, but was trying to gather more information. Even with what I had, I had enough.

Basically, what it came down to, in a nutshell, was that while the intrepretation prior to Vatican II was that a monastery of a certain right, was only under the direct authority of a branch of the Holy See, after Vatican II, even THESE so-called "independent" monasteries were within the jurisdiction of the Catholic church.

By the time I was telling Christa these things and telling her I was going to call some people to get their opinion, there was a point at which I was giving false and misleading information. It was information to lead me to the wrong conclusion but thinking I was right. So i had to check and double-check every single thing I did. I was extremely thorough in this research.

Basically, according to the pope himself, after the structural changes which occured after Vatican II, all the various religious communities were to be incorporated together to the degree that the "head is not separate from the body". All parts of the body, using biblical reference, were not independent of eachother, and the responsibilities they had one to another and to the church were common.

Prior to Vatican II, these departments were considered to be autonomous. Someone reading only the Canon law and not the change in interpretation before and after Vatican II could be led to believe whichever interpretation the church decided fit at that particular moment. But the church knew well enough, and yet they won more than one dismissal of vicarious liability, and got that on the record--that the, or an Archdiocese, is not responsible for acts committed by clergy under a religious school or monastery.

In actuality, the RCC had determined, within its own church, that an Archdiocese WAS responsible and had authority for even independent monasteries. The reasoning was this:

Each department was considered to be separate and had autonomy in the way they managed the basic everyday structures of their institutions. The way they budgeted, and other things, were entirely up to the monastery and the religious school. However, this was the defining point--

Anything having to do with teaching or preaching doctrine, church DOCTRINE, and any person who was in a position of teaching religious doctrine or MORALS, or any matter of the FAITH...any priest or other clergy doing such things...their actions were under the authority of the Archdiocese, and not their institution alone.

This was what changed after Vatican II. In matters of morals and doctrine, those persons in positions for teaching these things or promulgating them, were not just accountable to their own organization but to the Archdiocese.

Anyone who can get ahold of the Canon law interpretations can confirm this same thing I'm speaking of. But no one, no plaintiff's attorney for the cases in Oregon, cared to do so and even chose to go along with whatever the church said, despite the fact I sent at least 3 of them copies of my research, which filled up a 4 inch binder. At the top of my research, it just included Vatican I theories and interpretations and church structure. If one read only that part, and not the entire thing, you could miss the significant change that took place. I included documents from the Catholic church which showed what the shift was.

So anyway, it's right there.

This judge from multnomah county, he knew what I knew. He looked shocked, suprised, and delighted. And then he said he had to give it back to me because he wasn't technically allowed to see such things from people not party to the litigation he presided over.

What it means, is that the Archdiocese has a direct supervisory role over ANY and ALL clergy, whether they be priest or a simple "brother" or monk, if they are in a teaching or preaching, or sacramental position, regardless of the "order" they are affiliated with. The Archdiocese, according to the Roman Catholic Church itself, is liable and responsible for any misconduct arising from personelle that is in such a position. It is not only the responsibility of the monastery or the religious school, but is directly the responsibility of the Archdiocese.

And yet, if you look at the cases filed in the state of Oregon, every single one of them had the Archdiocese released from vicarious liability, which minimizes the responsibility that the Catholic church takes as a whole, and also protects Archdiocesan assets, which are often greater than those assets of a smaller institution.

After the Archdiocese decided to file bankruptcy and lump everything together in a bankruptcy claim, right before I was about to file this information publicly, in Oregon, after they got their way in Oregon, they moved on to do the same thing in other states throughout the U.S.

I was then in Washington state, and told Christa I was going to file my information and documentation with the Spokane courts, where a new bankruptcy was being filed. It was at this time that I and my son started having things thrown our way by the hospital in town and medical professionals, and it was at this time that my fax/printer fried. I always had one of those office deskjets which was both a printer and a fax combined. And then, my son and I started having this odd twitching, in the room I told Christa we slept in together, and it happened primarily at night.

So it was never filed. I still have copies. I gave some of the information to other people, and then I kept more than one copy for myself.

I questioned why the plaintiff's attorneys didn't care enough.

Maybe a few didn't read all the way through, but that Judge, who read the main bit I submitted, he knew. He knew it was pretty big. And I knew it, and the Catholic church knew it.

What pissed me off, pardon the expression, but from the beginning, even if some of these plaintiffs attorneys were sincere, I question how well prepared they were to take on the Catholic church from the beginning. I don't think they did their homework. On one hand, at least some of them had to be in it to help and make a difference, and you can't read and research everything. But you had, at the first hearing for the Archdiocese bankrtuptcy, for example, the HEAD attorney, Al Kennedy, saying stupid things like, "Did you get permission from the Vatican to file this bankruptcy?"

The guy didn't even know the difference between "the Vatican" and "The Holy See". One wouldn't GET "permission" from the Vatican, because the "Vatican" refers to a geographical boundary and location. It is "The Holy See" that is the governing body, from which permission could be requested. By asking stupid questions like this and not knowing how to distinguish even the small things, the church could and did get away with, I would say, quite a lot. The church could say "No" under oath to this stupid question, and not even be perjuring themselves, because they would know the question was in improper form to begin with.

I question whether Kennedy was stupid and arrogant, or whether he was a part of the whole deal, and was willing to sell his soul or was a part of the Catholic church's strategy to begin with.