OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Close This Box!

U.S. Case Against Holy See May Go Forward, Court Rules



BY JEFF GARDNER



REGISTER CORRESPONDENT



December 21, 2008-January 3, 2009 Issue | Posted 12/12/08 at 8:03 AM



LOUISVILLE, Ky. ? Could Pope Benedict XVI be deposed?



That?s a legal term, of course, for having to answer questions posed by lawyers as part of a ?discovery? process in a lawsuit.



One lawyer in the United States feels confident that he will be able to ask the Pope certain questions during a deposition, now that a federal appellate court has ruled that a Kentucky district court may consider jurisdiction over the Holy See.



The case involves three men who claim to have been sexually abused in Kentucky. Attorney William McMurry brought a class action lawsuit on their behalf in June 2004, naming the Holy See as the defendant. The suit alleged ?deliberate failure ? to take effective action to prevent childhood sexual abuse by its priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, agents and employees.? McMurry alleged that ?the Holy See has mandated that all allegations of childhood sexual abuse be kept under a cloak of complete secrecy.?

* * *

O'Bryan v. Holy See

Western District of Kentucky at Louisville

08a0417p.06 





JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Defendant Holy See appeals the district court?s denial, in part, of its motion to dismiss all of plaintiffs? claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Holy See contends that the district court has no subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs? claims because the Holy See is immune from suit as a foreign state pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (?FSIA?), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. Plaintiffs James H. O?Bryan, Donald E. Poppe, and Michael J. Turner (?plaintiffs?) cross-appeal the district court?s partial grant of the Holy See?s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs claim that the FSIA does not immunize the Holy See from suit on the grounds alleged in their complaint and thus the district court does in fact have subject matter jurisdiction in this case. The United States as intervenor and amicus supports the position of the Holy See with respect to the Holy See?s status as a foreign state and the constitutionality of the FSIA. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court.