Why Shouldn't The Pope Go To Jail For His Cover-Up Of Abuse While

[rkwright]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='03 April 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1270318525' post='2086151']
This is more the question I was asking: I wasnt suggesting he had been criminally negligent in his duties as Pope (though perhaps that may be?), [i]but as Cardinal Archbishop of Munich-Freising.[/i]
[/quote]

Honestly its difficult to answer this question without knowing the laws of Germany. What is required to show criminal negligence in Germany, if they even recognize such a crime.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='03 April 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1270318525' post='2086151']
This is more the question I was asking: I wasnt suggesting he had been criminally negligent in his duties as Pope (though perhaps that may be?), [i]but as Cardinal Archbishop of Munich-Freising.[/i]
[/quote]
He didn't break any laws, he followed standard medical advice. How is that breaking a law? If anyone should go to jail it would be the shrinks involved.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I can't say anything new to defend the Pope. Quite frankly, I think his innocence is self-explanatory.

As for suing him or arresting him, he is a sovereign head of state. No government has jurisdiction over him. There was a man who sued the pope when an order of monks didn't give him the dog he allegedly paid for (a St. Bernard bred by monks). The courts found in favor of the plaintiff, but not a dime was ever paid out because the court has no ability to enforce their decision.

[mortify]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='03 April 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1270318525' post='2086151']
This is more the question I was asking: I wasnt suggesting he had been criminally negligent in his duties as Pope (though perhaps that may be?), [i]but as Cardinal Archbishop of Munich-Freising.[/i]
[/quote]

The whole issue surrounds these three paragraphs from the NY Times:
[color="#0000FF"]
"A key moment came on Tuesday, Jan. 15, 1980. Cardinal Ratzinger presided that morning over the meeting of the diocesan council. His auxiliary bishops and department heads gathered in a conference room on the top floor of the bishop’s administrative offices, housed in a former monastery on a narrow lane in downtown Munich.

"It was a busy day, with the deaths of five priests, the acquisition of a piece of art and pastoral care in Vietnamese for recent immigrants among the issues sharing the agenda with item 5d, the delicate matter of Father Hullermann’s future.

"The minutes of the meeting include no references to the actual discussion that day, simply stating that a priest from Essen in need of psychiatric treatment required room and board in a Munich congregation. “The request is granted,” read the minutes, stipulating that Father Hullermann would live at St. John the Baptist Church in the northern part of the city. [/color]


Amidst numerous issues brought before a council one of them was granting an outside priest a place of residence. The reason? He's undergoing psychiatric treatment. The request was granted. This is the extent of the issue.

Edited April 4, 2010 by mortify

[Saint Therese]

[size="5"][quote name='CatherineM' date='03 April 2010 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1270307170' post='2086016']
If they throw the Pope in jail, then they should also throw the parents in jail for not reporting it to the police, and if they did report it, then throw the police in jail for not following through. How about the doctors involved, or teachers that might have known? Before we put someone in jail for being 3 steps down a paper trail, how about calling to account those who were actually responsible for the crime, or were in a position to know what happened but didn't follow through.

Here's a biggie. No bishop would ever have been in a position to move an abusive priest to a new parish if said priest (soon to be former priest hopefully) had been put in JAIL.
[/quote]

[/size]

[Ed Normile]

Why ? Cuz I sez so !!

ed

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='03 April 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1270292743' post='2085959']
find evidence of his crime....not allegednesses.

take him to court.

Find him guilty, if the evidence is there

throw him in jail.

let there be justice.

But then I feel the same way about all men, women, catholics, presbies, lutherans, hindus, muslims, americans, canadiens, chinese, and bunchie lovers. If you are proven, in a court of law, of this crime, you go to jail. Hopefully for a long time.

Be advised the Church does not own the police, the courts, or the judges. Ask THOSE people why he is not being brought to trial for this 'alleged' cover up.

I would suspect the lack of 'real' evidence... Axes to grind like the NYT, Maureen Dowd, Chris Hitchens, and the MSM as a whole do not stand up in a court of law as when you get to the facts, the few they have are obscured by their hatred of Christ and His Church.

I am sure other posters, smarter than I, can bring some facts of more truthiness to this thread.

I like to be a primer against stupidity.
[/quote]

i like it plus one.

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='03 April 2010 - 05:34 AM' timestamp='1270298095' post='2085969']
Could the Pope ever [i]be [/i]sent to a civil court?
[/quote]

im not condemning or defending the Pope's actions or lack thereof, id leave that to a proper court with all the relevant information (some people in this thread are a quick to deny the claims as others are quick to support them, with as far as i can tell, similarly researched evidence.) but i would hope that people would realize that "No one is above the law." for actions as the pope,.... i dunno, but he wasnt the Pope his entire life, so if something really did happen and he really was responsible for it, i would hope he doesnt get celebrity status and skim past it. i dont think thats likely in this case, but just in general.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='04 April 2010 - 04:40 AM' timestamp='1270370403' post='2086495']
i like it plus one.



im not condemning or defending the Pope's actions or lack thereof, id leave that to a proper court with all the relevant information (some people in this thread are a quick to deny the claims as others are quick to support them, with as far as i can tell, similarly researched evidence.) but i would hope that people would realize that "No one is above the law." for actions as the pope,.... i dunno, but he wasnt the Pope his entire life, so if something really did happen and he really was responsible for it, i would hope he doesnt get celebrity status and skim past it. i dont think thats likely in this case, but just in general.
[/quote]

I'm quick to defend the pope because he did nothing wrong. The facts have been brought to light, no one has challenged them, and it's quite clear that the New York Times, which has already lost all credibility and has proven that it has a bias, deliberately misrepresented the facts.

Further, if he had done something wrong, it would have been brought to light long before now.

Lastly, if we ever had the Medici involved again, or something similar, yes, I would hope that the pope would reform himself and repent of his sins. If he did, however, repent of grave sins, he would be all the more a great pope. True repentance from a lifetime of grave sin requires the grace and persistence of a saint, and we need a saintly pope. Even Peter proved this. Denying Christ is a great sin - greater, in fact, than the crimes Pope Benedict is falsely accused of - and St. Peter shows us how ready God is to make saints out of sinners. This doesn't mean that I would want a pope who is a grave sinner in hopes that he'd repent, but it does mean that I'd be in awe, not filled with shame, at his admission of sin and repentance.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

There was an article on FoxNews this morning talking about how the Brits may try to arrest him when he visits them in a few months. Some of the, apparently, are claiming they can do that because the Vatican isn't a "true state." So, just to clarify: the Papal States were illegitimately stolen from the pope by the Italian reunification movement using force. The pope had no real choice but to live as a prisoner for 70 years in the Vatican until the Lateran Treaty was signed in 1929. That treaty does not create a pseudostate (the article calls the Vatican a "construct" of Mussolini), but recognizes a legitimate state that the Italian government had wronged and acknowledges its rights. To claim that the Vatican isn't a state is to ignore history and an international treaty. A treaty between two acknowledged heads of state, no less.

[Ash Wednesday]

It took the UK's Home Office a year to process my passport when it should have been done in under 6 months. I'm not convinced they could pull off arresting the pope.

[Miss Hepburn]

[quote] Raphael--------I'm quick to defend the pope because he did nothing wrong.[color="#a0522d"][b] Does anyone ever rally know that or anything for that matter about any situation?[/b][/color] The facts have been brought to light, [color="#8b0000"][b]All of them?[/b][/color] no one has challenged them, and it's quite clear that the New York Times, which has already lost all credibility and has proven that it has a bias, deliberately misrepresented the facts.

Further, if he had done something wrong, it would have been brought to light long before now.
[color="#a0522d"][b]Isn't that a bit naive, no offense intended[/b][/color].
Lastly, if we ever had the Medici involved again, or something similar, yes, I would hope that the pope would reform himself and repent of his sins. If he did, however, repent of grave sins, he would be all the more a great pope. True repentance from a lifetime of grave sin requires the grace and persistence of a saint, and we need a saintly pope. Even Peter proved this. Denying Christ is a great sin - greater, in fact, than the crimes Pope Benedict is falsely accused of - and St. Peter shows us how ready God is to make saints out of sinners. [color="#a0522d"][b]Right on, good point! [/b][/color]This doesn't mean that I would want a pope who is a grave sinner in hopes that he'd repent, but it does mean that I'd be in awe, not filled with shame, at his admission of sin and repentance. [color="#a0522d"][b]It would impress many! It would be good press for the whole of Christianity itself![/b][color="#000000"] [/[/color][/color]quote]

My 2 cents, Miss Hepburn
Sorry, also trying to figure out how this board works.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Miss Hepburn

[Saint Therese]

Well for one thing the Holy Father is the sovereign of a foreign nation-how would he be put in jail? Secondly-It is an excommunicatable offense to lay violent hands on the HOly Father so I would imagine it might be a little difficult to find someone willing to actually do the arresting.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='04 April 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1270397490' post='2086599']
Well for one thing the Holy Father is the sovereign of a foreign nation-how would he be put in jail? Secondly-It is an excommunicatable offense to lay violent hands on the HOly Father so I would imagine it might be a little difficult to find someone willing to actually do the arresting.
[/quote]
How fitting would it be for clergy to be arrested in the land where Becket was martyred for opposing civil trials of clergy?

Anyway, apparently international law does say that you can arrest and try a man if he comes to your country. Regardless, I would think diplomatic immunity would kick in for a foreign sovereign.

[CatherineM]

I've been watching the progress of the lawsuits in the US against the Vatican for the clergy abuse. If they prevail in court, I guess they can attach any Vatican assets in the US. Bank accounts, bonds, etc. would be an easy grab, but I'm thinking they will attempt to go after any Catholic asset they can get their hands on. I vote for them taking Notre Dame.

[rkwright]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='04 April 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1270400207' post='2086637']
I've been watching the progress of the lawsuits in the US against the Vatican for the clergy abuse. If they prevail in court, I guess they can attach any Vatican assets in the US. Bank accounts, bonds, etc. would be an easy grab, but I'm thinking they will attempt to go after any Catholic asset they can get their hands on. I vote for them taking Notre Dame.
[/quote]

Do you know the name of the one where the district judge ruled the Plaintiffs could continue their suit against the vatican - that the vatican was not entitled to sovereign immunity?

[Ed Normile]

On the question of whether they could actually arrest the Pope, I would doubt that as he is the leader, or ruler if you want of a sovreign nation. It is not often you hear of a nations ruler being arrested.

Also, I feel he is not now, nor never was, personally responsible for either the incidents of abuse or the alledged cover up of any such incident.

ed

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='04 April 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1270397490' post='2086599']Secondly-It is an excommunicatable offense to lay violent hands on the HOly Father so I would imagine it might be a little difficult to find someone willing to actually do the arresting.
[/quote]

It wouldn't be difficult to find someone willing to arrest the pope in England if they were really setting out to do it. Anti-Catholic sentiments run pretty deep in the UK. But I think a lot of that is just talk (again, the deep-rooted anti-Catholic sentiment). But it's a moot point, as there is no real tangible case that could lead to an arrest.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Miss Hepburn' date='04 April 2010 - 01:08 PM' timestamp='1270397308' post='2086598']
[quote] Raphael--------I'm quick to defend the pope because he did nothing wrong.[color="#a0522d"][b] Does anyone ever rally know that or anything for that matter about any situation?[/b][/color] The facts have been brought to light, [color="#8b0000"][b]All of them?[/b][/color] no one has challenged them, and it's quite clear that the New York Times, which has already lost all credibility and has proven that it has a bias, deliberately misrepresented the facts.

Further, if he had done something wrong, it would have been brought to light long before now.
[color="#a0522d"][b]Isn't that a bit naive, no offense intended[/b][/color].
Lastly, if we ever had the Medici involved again, or something similar, yes, I would hope that the pope would reform himself and repent of his sins. If he did, however, repent of grave sins, he would be all the more a great pope. True repentance from a lifetime of grave sin requires the grace and persistence of a saint, and we need a saintly pope. Even Peter proved this. Denying Christ is a great sin - greater, in fact, than the crimes Pope Benedict is falsely accused of - and St. Peter shows us how ready God is to make saints out of sinners. [color="#a0522d"][b]Right on, good point! [/b][/color]This doesn't mean that I would want a pope who is a grave sinner in hopes that he'd repent, but it does mean that I'd be in awe, not filled with shame, at his admission of sin and repentance. [color="#a0522d"][b]It would impress many! It would be good press for the whole of Christianity itself![/b][color="#000000"] [/[/color][/color]quote]

My 2 cents, Miss Hepburn
Sorry, also trying to figure out how this board works.
[/quote]
Yes the facts ARE known from the people actually involved, and the Holy Father wasn't one of them. He has nothing to apologize for since he hasn't done anything wrong.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='rkwright' date='04 April 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1270403453' post='2086656']
Do you know the name of the one where the district judge ruled the Plaintiffs could continue their suit against the vatican - that the vatican was not entitled to sovereign immunity?
[/quote]
One case is out of Kentucky and one is out of Oregon. The Kentucky case involves something that happened in 1928. The priest died in 1952. The Oregon case occurred in the 60's with a priest that was moved from Ireland to Chicago to Portland eventually. I'm about a decade removed from my Westlaw terminal, but if you search for it, search for Holy See, not Vatican. That's the legal name.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='03 April 2010 - 07:05 AM' timestamp='1270292743' post='2085959']
find evidence of his crime....not allegednesses.

take him to court.

Find him guilty, if the evidence is there

throw him in jail.

let there be justice.

But then I feel the same way about all men, women, catholics, presbies, lutherans, hindus, muslims, americans, canadiens, chinese, and bunchie lovers. If you are proven, in a court of law, of this crime, you go to jail. Hopefully for a long time.

Be advised the Church does not own the police, the courts, or the judges. Ask THOSE people why he is not being brought to trial for this 'alleged' cover up.

I would suspect the lack of 'real' evidence... Axes to grind like the NYT, Maureen Dowd, Chris Hitchens, and the MSM as a whole do not stand up in a court of law as when you get to the facts, the few they have are obscured by their hatred of Christ and His Church.

I am sure other posters, smarter than I, can bring some facts of more truthiness to this thread.

I like to be a primer against stupidity.
[/quote]


[quote name='Resurrexi' date='03 April 2010 - 12:31 PM' timestamp='1270312301' post='2086093']
I thought that clerics were to be tried in an ecclesiastical court rather than a civil court? Obviously, however, that would not be possible in that case since "The first See is judged by no-one." (Can. 1404)
[/quote]

31. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.



This is related, isn't it?