- PII
- S27130398S1026945225080042-1
- DOI
- 10.7868/S2713039825080042
- Publication type
- Article
- Status
- Published
- Authors
- Volume/ Edition
- Volume / Issue number 8
- Pages
- 37-47
- Abstract
- In the article the author examines the legal and canonical aspects of the responsibility of churches and other religious organizations in the case of offenses committed by clergymen. The author analyzes the legal aspects of some significant decisions of the courts of the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Italy, as well as the European Court of Human Rights concerning issues of subsidiary responsibility in the framework of the priest-bishop relationship. Common law countries use the same test for applying subsidiary liability, which includes two elements. It is argued that the positions of the courts of Canada and the United Kingdom differed from the Australian approach, the courts of which do not agree to broadly interpret the absence of a formalized labor relationship between priests and bishops and impose obligations on churches to pay compensation to victims if the offense was closely related to the actions (inaction) of the church leadership. In conclusion, the author points out that Russian legislation on liability in labor and civil law relations and its application differs from general law, and clergy guilty of violating the law are individually held accountable. In the case of a conviction by a court, the law provides for filing a claim against the convicted person for material compensation for the damage caused.
- Keywords
- суд священнослужители субсидиарная ответственность епископ каноническое право правонарушение
- Date of publication
- 20.01.2026
- Year of publication
- 2026
- Number of purchasers
- 0
- Views
- 81
References
- 1. Ведаев А. В., Гайденко П. И., Оснепников Ю. В., Устинова Н. А. К покаянию и исправлению: суды над архиереями в истории и современности Русской Церкви. СПб., 2023. С. 156–159.
- 2. Гайденко П. И. О праве суда над духовенством и монашеством на Руси (XI–XIII вв.). Постановка проблемы // Христианское чтение. 2020. № 2. С. 109–120. DOI: 10.24411/1814–5574–2020–10030
- 3. Гражданское право: в 4 т. Т. 4: Обязательственное право: учеб. для студ. вузов, обучающихся по направлению 521400 «Юриспруденция» и по специальности 021100 «Юриспруденция» / отв. ред. Е.А. Суханов. 3-е изд., перераб. и доп. М., 2006. С. 641, 642.
- 4. Кодекс канонического права. М., 2007. С. 85, 173, 211, 231, 239, 328.
- 5. Костикова Г. В. Правовые основы трудовых отношений в религиозной организации // Трудовое право в России и за рубежом. 2017. № 4. С. 47.
- 6. Кравчук А.А. Деликтная ответственность работодателя за вред, причиненный его работником: теория и практика // Журнал юрид. исследований. 2023. № 3. С. 30.
- 7. Мосх И. Луг духовный. Сергиев Посад, 1896. Гл. 149. С. 177.
- 8. Пибаев И. А. Верховный суд США и доктрина «исключение для служителей» // Государство и право. 2024. № 6. С. 145–153.
- 9. Пибаев И. А. Правовые отношения между религиозными организациями и их служителями: трудовая или священная деятельность? // Сравнительное конституционное обозрение. 2023. № 6 (157). С. 116–145.
- 10. Уткин В. Канонические условия священства // Андреевский вестник. 2003. № 1 (9).
- 11. Calitz K. The liability of churches for the historical sexual assault of children by priests. URL: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1727-37812014000600007 (дата обращения: 14.02.2025).
- 12. Consorti P. La responsabilità della gerarchia ecclesiastica nel caso degli abusi sessuali commessi dai chierici, fra diritto canonico e diritti statuali // Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale. 2013. No. 17. P. 21, 23.
- 13. Foster N. Bishop not vicariously liable for abuse by clergy. URL: https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog/2024/11/14/bishop-not-vicariously-liable-for-abuse-by-clergy#more-9441 (дата обращения: 14.02.2025).
- 14. Gray M.M. The Impact of Religious Switching and Secularization on the estimated size of the U.S. Adult Catholic Population // Review of Religious Research. Art. 49. 2008. No. 4. Pp. 457–460.
- 15. Kam A. No ‘exceptional’ test for vicarious liability in sexual abuse cases: a welcome conclusion by the Supreme Court in Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB. URL: https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/oxford-university-undergraduate-law-journal-blog/blog-post/2023/07/no-exceptional-test-vicarious#_ftn1 (дата обращения: 14.02.2025).
- 16. Kidner R. Vicarious liability: for whom should the ‘employer’ be liable? // Legal Studies. 1995. No. 15(1) Pp. 47–64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748–121X.1995.tb00052.x
- 17. Licastro A. Riappare un “déjà vu” nella giurisprudenza: la responsabilità oggettiva del vescovo per gli atti illeciti dei suoi sacerdoti // Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale. 2013. No. 1. P. 10–12, 17–19.
- 18. Loiacono P. Tutela della dignità del sacerdozio ministeriale e necessità di assicurare ai minori un “ambiente ecclesiale sicuro”. La prevenzione dei delicata graviores contra mores // Questioni attuali. Pp. 245–256.
- 19. Meah N., Petchey P. Liability of Churches and Religious Organizations for Sexual Abuse of Children by Ministers of Religion // Common Law World Review. 2005. No. 34(1) Pp. 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1350/clwr.34.1.39.60192
- 20. Montini G. Il risarcimento del danno. 1991. P. 188.
- 21. Scott A.W. The Legal Status of the Clergyman // West Virginia Law Review. 1921. Vol. 27. Pp. 105–112.
