Pope Ready To Claim Head Of State Immunity Over Abuse Scandal
Tweet
Well then clearly they didn’t do anything wrong, right?
Court documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press show that Vatican lawyers plan to argue that the pope has immunity as head of state, that American bishops who oversaw abusive priests weren’t employees of the Vatican, and that a 1962 document is not the ‘smoking gun’ that provides proof of a cover-up.
It says right there in the bible: when accused of a crime, don’t admit guilt but look for international immunity from criminal prosecution.
50 Responses to “Pope Ready To Claim Head Of State Immunity Over Abuse Scandal”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Is your constant blogging about this issue being done in hopes that you will be able to get christians to abandon their faith?
Serious question.
Wha? More like I don’t like pedophiles being protected.
Why wouldn’t you want to bring this abuse out into the light of day!? Wouldn’t that make for a more effective and productive Christian community. I am Catholic and I agree with prosecuting offending priests, and for the Pope to be Ousted and a more positive representative of the tenants of the Church and Christianity be installed.
What message are you sending to the children who are being abused now, or are in danger of being abused when this behavior is ignored, excused and kept hidden; that they do not matter? What are you telling their parents and families? If my son were abused by a priest, I would be furious! What would be the long term consequences for the church by continually denying the behavior. Even in individual families when abusive sexual behavior is ignored and denied it just exacerbates and causes upheaval and destruction upon the entire family and often times the community at large. The affair (no pun) is disgusting and must be exposed, discussed, and then let the healing and rebuilding of the Church begin.
Sorry that comment response was actually for fado. Please keep doing what ya doin’!
Connie , as a Catholic , you should know that there is neither a precedent nor a procedure for “ousting a Pope”. The Catholic Church is not the Elks’ Club.
As I have said before, the priests should be dealt with as all accused pedophiles are dealt with — removed from the presence of children, until they are investigated, and tried, and, if guilty, appropriately sentenced.
As for the Church’s Curia, it needs to be determined if they were prompted to act as they did , because of a theological perspective, or if this was simply a bureaucratic C Y A move. Then it can be determined what should happen to the leadership.
I think even the Pope deserves a fair trial.
And, B T W , the Pope is a Head of State under long standing diplomatic protocols. Or should we abandon those , too, in our mad dash “not to get Christians to abandon their faith” ?
But there is a precedent for overriding one! Let’s set up an alternate papacy! Let’s get back to Avignon!
I think even the Pope deserves a fair trial.
Of course, but please flesh out that statement.
In what venue, under what legal system, administered by whom, and what might be the result if he is found guilty?
The devil is in the details.
Frank DiSalle for Antipope!
Isn’t the claim of sovereign immunity for the Pope by the Vatican’s lawyers in effect an admission of guilt?
“The Catholic Church is not the Elks’ Club.”
A genuine laugh out loud, and we know they’re not because Elk’s club members don’t fuck kids.
All who are involved with this scandal need to be held accountable. No immunity for the Pope!!!
Diplomatic immunity is an absurd privilege when a crime, or even an alleged crime, has been committed. It’s especially shamefully when God’s representative on earth is being implicated. Stand up Mr. Pope and deal with this head on, God would want you to do it that way. You know s/he would.
Cons defend the pope but would be going batshit if this happened in Islam
So Frank, let’s turn the question around, and assume that some other Head of State like Gordon Brown was credibly accused of aiding the cover-up of the rape of American children.
Would our response be “oh, gee, he has immunity, we should just let it slide.” ? I think our response would be quite a bit more angry. Especially if immunity was his defense, rather than a defense of “I’m innocent!”
And yes, a policy of moving pedophile priests is a policy of cover-up. I would say so if it was a teacher, priest, or doctor.
So you are pro-catholic then and are only concerned about the children?
Ok, fair enough. I take you at your word. Just seems to come across like you’re almost gloating about the troubles they’re having with this.
I didn’t say he should be granted immunity because he is a head of state.
If Gordon Brown were accused of a crime committed in the USA, what we would do? Seek extradition. If that failed , what would we do ? Something else.
I merely meant to say that the Pope wasn’t posing as a head of state ; he is a head of state .
Rheinhard: Set up a second Church anywhere you want.
The devil is in the details.
It is refreshing that one of you has admitted that there are details. That implies thought, something which, until now, seems to have been lacking.
BTW, I just read this morning that were over 2600 cases of child abuse in the last 5 years in the USA alone. I am trying to verify that.
I am sorry — I left out an important detail : That was 2600 cases of child abuse by public school educators in the last 5 years in the USA alone…
But, still, I am trying to corroborate it .
Frank, he can be excommunicated. There are grounds for sure. According to Cannon Law,That is when a person commits acts that separate him from the communion of the faithful or spreads division or confusion among the faithful, it is necessary for the church to clarify the situation by means of a formal announcement that informs the laity that he is not a person to follow and notifies the clergy that this person by THEIR OWN WILLFUL ACTS has separated from the church and is no longer to give or receive sacraments. I know that once ordained a priest he will always remain a priest, but he doesn’t have to practice and consecrates the host, and be the representation of Jesus here on earth.
And Frank, I have been a Catholic my entire life, went to Catholic School the whole nine yards, and I have never in all of my study of the Catechism (and I was raised old school Catholic, High Mass Catholic, almost became a nun Catholic) have I ever come across a THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE for covering up for a pedophile priest! What in God’s name would be a Theological perspective for doing such a thing? What would in your opinion be the criteria? How would such an investigation go? Lets see:
Bishop: “Father so&so, why did you molest the child?”
Father So&So: “I had a vision Bishop.”
Bishop: “What kind of vision”
Father So&So: “It was the Angel from God Bishop. The Angel told me to do it, to “love” this child.”
Bishop: “Well then my son, if it was a message from God. But just to be on the safe side say three
Hail Mary’s, and Act of Contrition and go and ‘sin’ no more…”
Is that how it would play out, to judge the criteria for a THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE FOR SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD!!!!
I would say that the Pope fits the criteria for excommunication.
If I hid evidence of a crime, and covered it up so that the person would not be prosecuted for the crime, I would be guilty of the crime as well. Is this the type of “criteria” you would hold for the Church?
And what would we do if the administrators of the schools covered it up, rather than ousting the teachers? And if one of those administrators covered it up, and later was elected POTUS? We would call for that person to resign, even if it was not possible to impeach him.
So that sounds a lot like what the Catholic commentor Connie is asking for – the current Pope to account for his errors, and resign.
And for the Pope’s lawyers to even bring up immunity as a head of state is a losing PR move, in my opinion. It may be true, but won’t gain any respect from parents and the folks abused as children.
MobiusKlein, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth . He is the head of a Church with a billion members .
You don’t ask him to resign because you’re just goldang sure he did something wrong…
Frank, the Pope is an old man in a dress, wearing a funny hat. Also, he appears to have abetted in the rape of children. I don’t give a flying fuck if he’s Jehovah himself – if he tried to sweep child rape under the rug, he needs to be removed from his post and put to trial.
Period.
That you cannot see that demonstrates the repugnancy of your moral code.
FDS – “I am sorry — I left out an important detail : That was 2600 cases of child abuse by public school educators in the last 5 years in the USA alone…”
Nice work Frank, now can you arrange immunity from prosecution for them. What’s good for the goose … .
Frank DiSalle: As for the Church’s Curia, it needs to be determined if they were prompted to act as they did , because of a theological perspective, or if this was simply a bureaucratic C Y A move. Then it can be determined what should happen to the leadership.
No, the first question asked is what was done, not why they did it. By asking the second question first you’re already leaning toward trying to excuse it.
And I’ll again ask you to clarify that. What difference does it make whether they were inspired by theology or or a desire to cover their asses?
If my religion believes in virgin sacrifice does that mean it’s OK for me to kill pre-teens because I’m theologically inspired?
If my religion believes in virgin sacrifice does that mean it’s OK for me to kill pre-teens because I’m theologically inspired?
No. But it would OK for you to try to cover it up. Such is Frank’s logic here.
I don’t ask him, because I’m not Catholic.
Catholics like Connie have a right to ask, and they can also do things like refuse to Tithe, bring it up in their church, and so on.
And attempting to hide behind a shield of immunity does nothing to convince Connie or I of his innocence. His PR moves are stupid.
Connie , as a Catholic , you should know that there is neither a precedent nor a procedure for “ousting a Pope”.
Sure there is.
That was 2600 cases of child abuse by public school educators
Number of public school educators in the US: ca. 7,000,000.
Number of Catholic priests in the US: ca. 46,000
Number of alleged cases of child abuse by Catholic priests in US: ca. 500
Rate of Catholic priest child abuse (500/46000) = ca. 1%
Rate of public school child abuse (2600/7,000,000) = .03%
How much more likely is a Catholic priest to abuse a child than a public school teacher? ca. 33 times more likely.
Number of upper-echelon leaders of the Catholic church that have been involved in child-abuse coverups? Several, including the pontifex maximus ispe.
Number of upper-echelon leaders of American education that have been involved in child-abuse coverups? None.
Big-time false equivalency fail, Frank
Popes have abdicated before, typically ‘for the good of the church’ – a convenient phrase which usually translates as ‘We would rather not wake up dead one morning’.
Frank, speaking just for that wing of what you’re perceiving as the Know-Nothings II that I belong to – I don’t want to destroy the Church. I _would_ like it if the Curia/Sacred College/Pope would make what would at least appear to be a good-faith effort to address this problem.
To the best of my knowledge, that has not yet happened, nor is there any credible evidence that it is going to happen. This bothers me.
mambochicken: I was not expressing the belief of a close – minded cynical worshipper at the altar of the enlightenment – you – or a Bible- thumping , non – practicing Catholic – me. I was expressing the belief of humdreds of millions of Catholics around the world.
Wilbur, your bean counting is neither accurate , helpful or instructive. Especially when you say there was never a cover up . Are you kidding? Never a cover up? Ever? Not one?
And fafaroo, please, don’t try to do my thinking for me – you’re not good enough at it.
The theological point is that if the Church took the attitude that the priests had repented , but they were wrong, then there was no deliberate cover up. Surely, that is arguable, but it is no foregone conclusion that the Pope and the Curia are already guilty.
And Wilbur your ridiculous attempt to go back 11 centuries for a precedent won’t work for several reasons:
The Holy Roman Emperor went out of business a long time. The second man to try and revive the post gave us social security. The second man gave us the Holocaust. Second, the Pope was deposed for an unknown reason – the H R E disapproved of him, that’s all – THEN he resigned. Third, the story comes from <strike the World Book Encyclopedia of the Internet, so it is questionable on its face.
To the best of my knowledge, that has not yet happened, nor is there any credible evidence that it is going to happen. This bothers me.
Let it bother you no longer.
See below — there was a problem with the URL’s
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/abuse-victims-meet-irish-cardinal
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/pope-sex-abuse-victims-i-am-truly-sorry
http://ncronline.org/news/swiss-bishops-apologize-underestimated-abuse-problem
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/priest-wis-trial-calls-news-reports-inaccurate
The Church has handled far worse problems than this, believe me.
And more from Zenit:
http://www.zenit.org/article-28804?l=english
Wilbur, your bean counting is neither accurate , helpful or instructive. Especially when you say there was never a cover up . Are you kidding? Never a cover up? Ever? Not one?
My numbers may well be off, Frank, but what you need to show if you want to engage in meaningful dialogue is a) which numbers are off, and b) that my errors are severe enough to invalidate my basic point, which is that the rate of child molestation among teachers is not even in the same ballpark as that for Catholic priests.
Are you kidding? Never a cover up? Ever? Not one?
I’m sure there have been coverups, but coverups involving “upper-echelon leaders of American education”? I’m not aware of any. Are you? Provide me with evidence of such a case and I will condemn it as loudly as I condemn the Catholic hierarchy for their handling of this matter.
Wilbur, you can’t push the ball back into my court. a) Percentages don’t reflect scale b) If you don’t know if any public school teachers were reassigned or parents or children were silenced, then you can’t say it never happened; I don’t have to prove it did – you have to prove it didn’t c) by the logic that has permeated these “religion” threads (I’m still waiting for a child abuse thread), if anyone even knew about it, then they are similarly guilty. Therefore, the school principals, the members of the Boards of Education, and the various States’ Boards of Regents are all complicit.
I am still looking for the source of the figures and when I find it, that may provide all of you with some interesting food for thought. Of course, that presumes that anyone of you are capable of thought regarding this topic.
The theological point is that if the Church took the attitude that the priests had repented , but they were wrong, then there was no deliberate cover up.
You seem to be confusing the laws of the church with the laws of the state. Repentance does not obviate a crime under the laws of the state. Knowledge of a crime and failure to report it is, indeed, a deliberate coverup.
Nut, but, Wilbur, your anti-Catholic bigotry is showing!
Of course, that presumes that anyone of you are capable of thought regarding this topic.
Frank, what is it exactly that you believe we are confused about? Are you asserting that no sexual abuse by Catholic priests occurred or, if it did, that the number of incidents of actual sexual abuse are exaggerated? I honestly can’t figure out what you are taking issue with here. None of us are calling for the destruction of the Catholic Church or condemning all priests and the Catholic laity. What are you defending here?
Frank DiSalle: mambochicken: I was not expressing the belief of a close – minded cynical worshipper at the altar of the enlightenment – you – or a Bible- thumping , non – practicing Catholic – me. I was expressing the belief of humdreds of millions of Catholics around the world.
So don’t hold Frank to anything he posts. The views he expresses are not his own.
Wilbur, your bean counting is neither accurate , helpful or instructive. Especially when you say there was never a cover up . Are you kidding? Never a cover up? Ever? Not one?
And don’t muddy the waters with facts. They are not helpful. Not unless you can prove you’ve accounted for every single situation ever anywhere. And if you do that, you facts will still not be helpful or show anything becuase they don’t show what Frank wants them to.
And fafaroo, please, don’t try to do my thinking for me – you’re not good enough at it.
And Frank doesn’t want you to think for him. He’d prefer to not think for himself.
Frank DiS: The theological point is that if the Church took the attitude that the priests had repented , but they were wrong, then there was no deliberate cover up. Surely, that is arguable, but it is no foregone conclusion that the Pope and the Curia are already guilty.
I don’t follow. If the Church took a particular attitude, but they were wrong… ? So that excuses… What?
In any event, “then there was no deliberate cover up.” WTF? The Church knew a crime had been committed. They deliberately chose not to tell anyone about it. Further, the long standing (decades) policy of the Church was to remove these priests from places where their crimes would be discovered and put them someplace else. Assisting someone in avoiding the penalties associated with a crime you know they’ve committed is a crime. Those involved should be called to account in criminal courts where they can make their case.
“I thought he was sorry and wouldn’t do it again” is not an acceptable argument. If it really is, then why don’t those who covered up for pedophiles come to court and make that case? Let’s see how that works out for them.
PT – “None of us are calling for the destruction of the Catholic Church or condemning all priests and the Catholic laity. What are you defending here?”
Although Frank has an excellent vocabulary and can argue any point of view any time of the day or night, he has a problem with basic honesty. He easily slags every single Muslim with a stroke of his mighty keyboard but he’s unable to seriously reflect on some of the deleterious aspects of his own Church and it’s political structures. I guess it’s the best he can do when the only world he’s even known is quickly crumbling right before his eyes. Now is the time for gonads and intestinal fortitude, if you can muster them.
Frank DiS: http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/pope-sex-abuse-victims-i-am-truly-sorry
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/priest-wis-trial-calls-news-reports-inaccurate
So clearly the “they apologized and repent” and “things will be fine if we just move them to a different parish” ideas are good ones.
Frank Dis: a) Percentages don’t reflect scale
Please elaborate. On what scale do abuses have to occur before we’re allowed to be offended by them? Did the Church not abuse enough kids for it to matter?
b) If you don’t know if any public school teachers were reassigned or parents or children were silenced, then you can’t say it never happened
You’re claiming someone said something they didn’t say, and then arguing against what they didn’t say He didn’t. In fact, Wilbur actually acknowledge it may have happened, but that he hadn’t heard of it. (“I’m sure there have been coverups, but coverups involving “upper-echelon leaders of American education”? I’m not aware of any.”)
c) by the logic that has permeated these “religion” threads (I’m still waiting for a child abuse thread), if anyone even knew about it, then they are similarly guilty. Therefore, the school principals, the members of the Boards of Education, and the various States’ Boards of Regents are all complicit.
IF they knew about it, yes. And leaders in the Church knew about the abuse going on. They acted on that knowledge to help pedophiles escape punishment and re-offend. They are, as you say, similarly guilty.
Yes, Sean , I would say that Father Brundage knows what he’s talking about. In fact, I’d be inclined to believe him if he said this:
Wouldn’t you,Sean?
Sean?
Meanwhile, how surprised are you that this happened ?
“A lie will go half way around the world, while truth is pulling its boots on.”
b) If you don’t know if any public school teachers were reassigned or parents or children were silenced, then you can’t say it never happened; I don’t have to prove it did – you have to prove it didn’t
Baaaaaahahahaha! Major fail, Frank. Major, epic fail. As is typical. You are not smart.
Wouldn’t you,Sean?
Sean?
You echo my name as if I’m the one who has dropped out of conversations or not responded when asked a straightforward question.
Anyway, to answer yours, no, not necessarily. Doesn’t mean I would automatically disbelieve him either. I saw Father Brundage’s comment when I read the article but I don’t know enough about the specifics of what Benedict has done to know if his statement is accurate or not.
Using standards you’ve most recently echoed in your reply to Wilbur’s stats on pedophiles in education, you should have no objection if I had responded with a “Are you kidding? Never a [better Pope]? Ever? Not one?” But I’ll go with Benedict’s done more than other Pope. I’ll also note that other Popes probably haven’t had a worldwide abuse scandal to deal with, so it’s faint praise.
As for the “The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history”? That part I’m skeptical of and tend to dismiss as hyperbole by someone who ardently supports the Church.
Meanwhile, how surprised are you that this happened ?
What, that someone noticed their mistake and then corrected it and apologized for the mistake? Gee, Frank, I thought that “Oops, my bad.” was all we’re supposed to ask from anyone these days.
I don’t know enough about the specifics of what Benedict has done to know if his statement is accurate or not.
So why talk as if it’s true? { That, of course, is directed at all of you. }
I can guarantee if some one on the right made an equivalent error, you wouldn’t be calling it a mistake.
So why talk as if it’s true?
WTF?? Where have I done that? You’ve complained about people saying things they haven’t said, ignore what they actually do say and avoid answering direct questions.
If my religion believes in virgin sacrifice does that mean it’s OK for me to kill pre-teens because I’m theologically inspired?
Do you believe the leadership acted correctly in how they dealt with pedophile priests?
Do you believe covering up a crime is also a crime?
“has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured
Anything is 100% more than nothing.
Claiming sovereign immunity is the clearest indicator of guilt I can think of offhand.
And why believe anything the spokesman for the accused says anyway?
If the boy scouts of america were accused of systematically shuttling around scout leaders accused of childhodd sex abuse I bet the reaction would be far more robust.
If the Nation of Islam had 1/100th of the claims of childhood sex abuse, mosques would be burning in every city in the US.
The double standard is just mind boggling.
Frank DiSalle:
SDM:
Well, Frank?
Frank?
Frank?
I am not in the least bit surprised. Frank likes to participate in conversations only for as long as he can hurl insults and play the victim. When they involve actually, y’know, answering reasonable questions…. he bolts.