Couple sue hospital Priest over Baptism

Onesimus

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A couple has sued a city hospital and a Russian Orthodox priest who they claim conducted an unauthorized "emergency baptism" of their premature newborn son, even though the priest contends he merely said a pre-baptismal prayer for the child and never even saw or touched him.
http://hosted2.ap.org/PASCR/a9680d76eb6b41b1aeef10e7559dc261/Article_2012-06-22-Baptized%20or%20Not?/id-c4816caa11b845e390d951ca28b2e77c

Americans would sue ya for standing on their foot by accident if they could. From the reading the story the couple are lying. Another updated news source said that Fr.Mitchell was told by the father of the child to come and say a prayer outside the room.

Taking people to the court for things in the states seems so popular that they even made a tv show ( Judge Judy ) about it. :pac: lol

Manach

It would seem odd, as to sue in trespass in this fashion as some measure of contact beyond the ordinary day-to-day sense would need to be reasonably proved and given what I'd image the strict security in such a natal unit that would be difficult to prove.

Onesimus

Manach wrote: »

It would seem odd, as to sue in trespass in this fashion as some measure of contact beyond the ordinary day-to-day sense would need to be reasonably proved and given what I'd image the strict security in such a natal unit that would be difficult to prove.

Yeah surely they can look over the CCTV footage and see what happened? the couple claim he went inside and even inside the incubator. But Fr.Mitchell said that was off grounds so he stood outside and sprinkled some Holy Water on the ground and said a prayer. I am sure that all of that would be caught on CCTV cameras.

MrPudding

Manach wrote: »

It would seem odd, as to sue in trespass in this fashion as some measure of contact beyond the ordinary day-to-day sense would need to be reasonably proved

No. Any contact would be sufficient. The degree or purpose of the contact is irrelevant, the only thing that will matter is if it was consented to.

Manach wrote: »

and given what I'd image the strict security in such a natal unit that would be difficult to prove.

I would expect that the strict security would make proving contact very easy. The area will be covered by CCTV, so if it did actually happen I would expect there would be proof.

MrP

Manach

MrPudding wrote: »

No. Any contact would be sufficient. The degree or purpose of the contact is irrelevant, the only thing that will matter is if it was consented to.

I would expect that the strict security would make proving contact very easy. The area will be covered by CCTV, so if it did actually happen I would expect there would be proof.

MrP

- My understanding is that ordinary everyday contact (ie jousting in a train etc) would not not fall under such a trespass to person.
- If there is CCTV coverage then that should resolve the manner fairly quickly.

Lucy8080

"and they shall ask a child seven days old for the place of life."

not the cc tv camera.

* did i get that quote right? drawing from memory here.!

poor child eh?

lmao.

wont be poor for long with parents like that, and legalistic brains who understand everything about the letter of the law. whilst they kill the spirit of it.

philologos

If the parents didn't consent to it, it should have never happened. Surely that's it.

MrPudding

Manach wrote: »

- My understanding is that ordinary everyday contact (ie jousting in a train etc) would not not fall under such a trespass to person.
- If there is CCTV coverage then that should resolve the manner fairly quickly.

There are a number of elements to it. You are quite correct, normal everyday contact would not be sufficient, unless there was some underlying intention. So for example, being on a crowed tube and using the crowding and the swaying of the tube to touch a woman's bum or breasts. Arguable something that could happen innocently during the course of a trip on a busy train, but is transformed by the intention behind it. So, everyday contact would not, nessecarily be beyond the scope of this tort.

In any event, I would suggest that baptism, if it actually happened, would be beyond "everyday contact" so would be unlikely to fall into this exception. Surely you are not trying to argue that the act of baptising someone would amount to mere everyday contact?

I believe the CCTV, if it is available, would lay matters to rest very quickly. Given that the hospital, which is presumably responsible for the CCTV, is also being sued I hope the footage does not get "accidentally" deleted.

MrP

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

If the parents didn't consent to it, it should have never happened. Surely that's it.

Exactly.

MrP

The Big Red Button

The article says that the priest wasn't allowed into the neonatal intensive care unit, and that "he simply sprinkled some water in a hospital hallway and said an emergency pre-baptismal prayer."

Surely it'll be pretty easy to prove whether he had access to the baby or not? I'd imagine they have pretty strict policies and procedures in place in the hospital?

Also - even if he had baptised the baby - according to the article, they are suing for "assault and battery" even though "the couple isn't claiming the child was physically harmed, and Myers confirmed the boy — who will be 2 on Aug. 27 — is healthy."

How can you sue for damages if there was no damage done?

The whole thing is ridiculous.

Manach

MrPudding wrote: »

There are a number of elements to it. You are quite correct, normal everyday contact would not be sufficient, unless there was some underlying intention. So for example, being on a crowed tube and using the crowding and the swaying of the tube to touch a woman's bum or breasts. Arguable something that could happen innocently during the course of a trip on a busy train, but is transformed by the intention behind it. So, everyday contact would not, nessecarily be beyond the scope of this tort.

In any event, I would suggest that baptism, if it actually happened, would be beyond "everyday contact" so would be unlikely to fall into this exception. Surely you are not trying to argue that the act of baptising someone would amount to mere everyday contact?
MrP

No - and I'd agree with your definition of "normal everyday".

MrPudding

chatterpillar wrote: »

The article says that the priest wasn't allowed into the neonatal intensive care unit, and that "he simply sprinkled some water in a hospital hallway and said an emergency pre-baptismal prayer."

Not quite, the article tells us that the priest said he was not allowed in the neonatal intensive care unit, that he did not go into it and that all he did was sprinkle water in the hallway.

chatterpillar wrote: »

Surely it'll be pretty easy to prove whether he had access to the baby or not?

I would expect so. I would think this should get cleared up very quickly.

chatterpillar wrote: »

I'd imagine they have pretty strict policies and procedures in place in the hospital?

I would like to hope so, but then all it takes is a friendly catholic nurse that thinks she is doing the right thing.

chatterpillar wrote: »

Also - even if he had baptised the baby - according to the article, they are suing for "assault and battery" even though "the couple isn't claiming the child was physically harmed, and Myers confirmed the boy — who will be 2 on Aug. 27 — is healthy."

How can you sue for damages if there was no damage done?

The whole thing is ridiculous.

There does not need to be actual damage, trespass against the person is an offence per se, there does not have to be damage. In fact, in this particular tort, in the UK and Ireland anyway, there does not have to be contact for assault. In the tort (not to be confused with the criminal offence) assault is giving a person the apprehension that you are going to commit an unlawful act on them. So running towards them with a stick shouting "I am going to smash your face in" is an assault. Actually smashing their face in is a battery.

Not actually sure if you can assault a new born baby, I reckon not.

MrP

The Big Red Button

In this video, it says that the parents are suing for "significant turmoil within the plaintiff's family" and "severe emotional distress." Makes more sense than the assault and battery claims anyways, I guess.

It also says that the priest was called there by the baby's father.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZt_4QQ42yw

I know I'd be pretty pissed off if someone baptised my kid without my express permission. And I can see where they're coming from in a way (if it's true that he did it) - I'd hate the idea of a non-medical member of the public being in the vicinity of a tiny vulnerable newborn without the parents knowing about it. Although I'd be more likely to raise the issue with the hospital, rather than suing the priest.

The baby was born sixteen weeks premature, but he survived and is healthy - you'd think they'd be grateful for that. Making a fuss over something so unimportant seems crazy to me, given the context.

It definitely seems like one of these "compensation culture" cases.

Onesimus

chatterpillar wrote: »

In this video, it says that the parents are suing for "significant turmoil within the plaintiff's family" and "severe emotional distress." Makes more sense than the assault and battery claims anyways, I guess.

It also says that the priest was called there by the baby's father.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZt_4QQ42yw

I know I'd be pretty pissed off if someone baptised my kid without my express permission. And I can see where they're coming from in a way (if it's true that he did it) - I'd hate the idea of a non-medical member of the public being in the vicinity of a tiny vulnerable newborn without the parents knowing about it. Although I'd be more likely to raise the issue with the hospital, rather than suing the priest.

The baby was born sixteen weeks premature, but he survived and is healthy - you'd think they'd be grateful for that. Making a fuss over something so unimportant seems crazy to me, given the context.

It definitely seems like one of these "compensation culture" cases.

Its all rather simple really. The medical bills are sky high in America even with Insurance. The family probably have no money and are looking for anyway in which they can to make up for the costs.

I know myself that being Catholic, if some buddist monk decided to stand outside the door of my child who is sick and began to pray, I would not be in the slightest worried about it at all. In fact, I'd probably invite him downstairs for a cup of tea afterwards and thank him for showing his love and harmless support for the child. He only means well after all.

We live in a culture of religious hatred. We always have and we always will.

Sonics2k

I'm confused. Are they suing him because he baptised the child, or because they think he opened the containment unit.

If it's the former, well then I can see why they may be annoyed, but it's not worth suing. And if it's the latter, then it's completely understandable as it's highly risky to do.

NaasPreacher

chatterpillar wrote: »

The whole thing is ridiculous.

This says it all. I am not Catholic or Orthodox or any of the churches that require infant baptism, but I am hardly going to sue a priest who did something like this even if I did not request.

I believe that infant baptism is meaningless, that makes an incident like this, well, meaningless.

philologos

NaasPreacher wrote: »

This says it all. I am not Catholic or Orthodox or any of the churches that require infant baptism, but I am hardly going to sue a priest who did something like this even if I did not request.

I believe that infant baptism is meaningless, that makes an incident like this, well, meaningless.

I would still be annoyed if someone came into contact with my child without my express permission or consent, irrespective of what they were doing never mind a religious ritual.

NaasPreacher

philologos wrote: »

I would still be annoyed if someone came into contact with my child without my express permission or consent, irrespective of what they were doing never mind a religious ritual.

If it were actual contact, sure, I can see that, but if it were indeed just a ritual in the corridor I wouldn't be too bothered.

philologos

NaasPreacher wrote: »

If it were actual contact, sure, I can see that, but if it were indeed just a ritual in the corridor I wouldn't be too bothered.

That is contact. Its just the principle. I can understand why they are annoyed.

Of course from my perspective, sprinkling water over a child's head in and of itself does not secure salvation or belief in Jesus.

NaasPreacher

philologos wrote: »

That is contact. Its just the principle. I can understand why they are annoyed.

Of course from my perspective, sprinkling water over a child's head in and of itself does not secure salvation or belief in Jesus.

Love your screen name BTW :-)

I guess I can see the irritation. We had a grandson born quite early and when they had to move him to an NICU the hospital wanted to know if Mum and Dad wanted a priest to baptise him 'just in case.' We probably would have been irritated if they had just done it instead of asking.

I don't think there would have been cause for a lawsuit though.

FISMA

BS suit, any judge worth their weight will throw this one out.

How are they going to prove damages?

I wonder who is going to pick up the bill for a 16 week preemie?

MrPudding

FISMA wrote: »

BS suit, any judge worth their weight will throw this one out.

How are they going to prove damages?

I wonder who is going to pick up the bill for a 16 week preemie?

Intake it you didn't read the thread then? No need to prove damage. If he touched the child without consent that is enough.

MrP

Morag

My grand aunt worked in one of the maternity hospitals in dublin in what would be considered the NICU these days and would baptise every baby she came in contact with,
while working the night shift using holy water and chrism.

This stuff can happen in hospitals, esp if a believer sees the child dying unbaptised as being a greater sin.

Brer Fox

philologos wrote: »

That is contact. Its just the principle. I can understand why they are annoyed.

Of course from my perspective, sprinkling water over a child's head in and of itself does not secure salvation or belief in Jesus.

A witch could stand in the corridor casting curse spells on the child. Anyone can do whatever they want outside a neo-natal room as long as it's not overtly indecent or illegal. Prayers and the like can be done silently and covertly without anyone knowing, never mind obtaining consent. In this case, no physical contact was made with the kid.

philologos

Brer Fox wrote: »

A witch could stand in the corridor casting curse spells on the child. Anyone can do whatever they want outside a neo-natal room as long as it's not overtly indecent or illegal. Prayers and the like can be done silently and covertly without anyone knowing, never mind obtaining consent. In this case, no physical contact was made with the kid.

That's only if you discount what the parents were saying as completely false, and lies. I'm not sure I can do that actually.

The article is unclear even as to what the priest himself claims to have done. Perhaps I should take a look at it again in the morning.

homer911

If they succeed, we can all sue the Mormons. It would be the biggest class action suit ever!

georgieporgy

I remember reading somewhere in the bible Jesus saying "suffer the little children to come unto me". "Forbid them not".
My guess is he would be happy enough with infant baptism.
Not that there is any question of baptism having been attempted or performed in this instance if we are to believe the evidence as presented.

gimmebroadband

...... and circumcision is performed on infants and very rarely on adults. Christian Baptism replaced circumcision.

Slav

Onesimus wrote: »

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A couple has sued a city hospital and a Russian Orthodox priest who they claim conducted an unauthorized "emergency baptism" of their premature newborn son, even though the priest contends he merely said a pre-baptismal prayer for the child and never even saw or touched him.

As far as I know, in case of emergency an Orthodox priest can baptise a child only if knows that the the parents are Orthodox or they have explicitly asked for their child to be baptised. Otherwise such baptism is pointless from the Church point of view. Here it does not look like it even was a case of emergency. What he could do however is to say the pre-baptismal prayers so later if there is a need the child could be baptised quickly. No contact with the child or use of water is needed for the pre-baptismal prayers of course.

Slav

homer911 wrote: »

If they succeed, we can all sue the Mormons. It would be the biggest class action suit ever!

No chance. Who would have THAT money to bring them to the court?

philologos

georgieporgy wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere in the bible Jesus saying "suffer the little children to come unto me". "Forbid them not".
My guess is he would be happy enough with infant baptism.
Not that there is any question of baptism having been attempted or performed in this instance if we are to believe the evidence as presented.

I understand that much. However, this isn't a case of a child seeking out the priest. It is a case of the priest seeking out the child without the permission of the parents.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

...... and circumcision is performed on infants and very rarely on adults. Christian Baptism replaced circumcision.

Yes, baptism in a few cases were performed on children, but in the New Testament church most were adult baptisms which took place after the believer accepted faith in Christ.

There's a whole separate debate to be had on that though.