Pope Has Immunity In Abuse Trials: Vatican

http://news.yahoo.com/ ^ | April 1,2010 | Philip Pullella

[Biggirl]

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict, accused by victims' lawyers of being ultimately responsible for a cover-up of sexual abuse of children by priests, cannot be called to testify at any trial because he has immunity as a head of state, a top Vatican legal official said on Thursday. The interview with Giuseppe dalla Torre, head of the Vatican's tribunal, was published in Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper as Pope Benedict began Holy Thursday services in St Peter's Basilica and Catholics marked the most solemn week of the liturgical calendar, culminating on Sunday in Easter Day.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“It’s sad that the Pope’s only defense for such crimes is that he “has immunity.””

It’s wonderful that the pope’s only needed defense from all accusations of crimes in this regard is that he is innocent.

“As the so-called “Vicar of Christ” on Earth, one would expect a little more integrity than that.”

Innocence is integrity.

[ArrogantBustard]

I bet he breaks some laws in the country being stuck ...

[vladimir998]

War crime charges are possible. And the president would insist on his immunity on that score.

[ArrogantBustard]

Thank you. Somebody "gets it".

That somebody also happens to be Catholic.

Funny thing, that.

[Campion]

A President ordering a military strike doesn’t break any law that I know of.

No laws of his own country, no.

Do you seriously think that, if the Taliban regained power in Afghanistan, they wouldn't love to prosecute George Bush for every war crime they can dream up?

[Grunthor]

Ok so we now have confirmation that the pope, the head of a church, is above the law.

As an aside, I do not believe that the pope is or ever supported child molestation.

[Persevero]

“Do you seriously think that, if the Taliban regained power in Afghanistan, they wouldn’t love to prosecute George Bush for every war crime they can dream up? “

Well, that would be in Afghanistan, wouldn’t it? Not here. I don’t think a powerful Taliban in Afghanistan could prosecute a President of another country.

Flipping the coin, do you want Presidents etc. to be able to evade taxes, shoplift, rape, steal cars, abuse their kids?

I think they should be prosecuted for criminal activity just like everybody else.

[Grunthor]

“Who couldn’t see this one coming. Any one who makes it to that position can basically have sex with kittens and be immune”

HEY YOU CAN’T ACCUSE THE POPE OF BEASTIALITY!

(sarcasm)

[ArrogantBustard]

Do you know that there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of people in these United States, foreigners no less, who are utterly and completely immune to any criminal prosecution or civil legal action?

I hope you're appropriately scandalized.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Only defense"? Presumption of innocense is applicable here, too.

But this is why accusations against priests, rabbis, or moral conservatives are irresistible: Even in unproven or unproveable cases, the accusation itself is as damaging as a conviction.

[Persevero]

Yes, I do know, and I am scandalized.

Some embassy personnel get away with actual murder.

[ArrogantBustard]

Then you're aware that US diplomats enjoy the same immunity in the countries to which they are sent.

It's actually a good thing. Consider some of the places we send diplomats.

And ALL heads of state, including the President of the United States enjoy that immunity. For good reason. It inhibits prosecution and frivolous lawsuits being used as political tools and weapons. (Prosecution as war carried out by other means)

[frithguild]

"The Church is not a multi-national corporation," dalla Torre said. "He has (spiritual) primacy over the Church ... but every bishop is legally responsible for running a diocese."

Seems that the Pope asserts the same position he did in 1164 regarding the trial of criminous clarks.

[Persevero]

I am not in favor or frivolous lawsuits and once again am speaking of criminal law.

[tiki]

Hey, you can accuse anyone of anything but having a little proof makes you look less like a deranged fool.

[ArrogantBustard]

again am speaking of criminal law.

Are you claiming that criminal law cannot be misused as a political tool or "war carried out by other means"?

Please don't be absurd.

[Guyin4Os]

But this is why accusations against priests, rabbis, or moral conservatives are irresistible: Even in unproven or unproveable cases, the accusation itself is as damaging as a conviction.

But the rest of us don't have "immunity." We all go to court and are tried to determine our guilt or innocence. Even heads of state are required to be tried... such as Milosevich.

The Catholic Church has been racked with child molestation cases. It has paid out billions in settlements because not only did priests molest little kids, but also the Church let them continue to be priests. One would think that the LEAST the Catholic Church owes to the world is for its own pope to testify in a single trial...if for no other reason than to show the world that the Roman Catholic Church is serious about purging child molestation from its priesthood.

The "Holy Church" is supposed to be the "Kingdom of God" hence the pope being the "head of state." The Kingdom of God is when God's will is done on earth as it is in Heaven. God's will isn't even being done in His "church" if there are still priests molesting children. If the pope was really serious about getting rid of this horrible practice, he would prove it by testifying at the trial.

[Campion]

Well, that would be in Afghanistan, wouldn’t it? Not here. don’t think a powerful Taliban in Afghanistan could prosecute a President of another country.

The Pope is the head of state of "another country"; he's not an American citizen.

Flipping the coin, do you want Presidents etc. to be able to evade taxes, shoplift, rape, steal cars, abuse their kids?

The issue is not whether a chief of state has sovereign immunity over the law of his own country, but whether he has it over the laws of another country. That's why the Bush/Afghanistan example is applicable.

This has to do with lawyers in Kentucky and elsewhere who are making the (completely false) argument that every Catholic cleric is an employee of the Vatican, and the Vatican can therefore be sued for any act they commit.

[frithguild]

All heads of state are immune to foreign civil suits (and probably criminal actions too).

But they resk being declared

persona no grata. As I see it, a foreign governmental body that purposely avails itself of conducting business in the host jurisdiction (accepts donations) submits itself to the laws and their administration by the courts of the jurisdiction. While the Pope may be immune, a sanction of forefiture may be within the asenal of a court with jurisdiction.

[RobbyS]

That remark rather assumes the guilt of the pope, does it not. Fact is that the pope is not an autocrat and puppet who pulls the strings on every priest in the world. The irony of this situation is that after Vatican II, there was a kind of rebellion against papal authority. The moral laxity that has produced this scandal may be attributed to the ignoring of that authority by laity and clergy alike. The most famous example is the rejection of humanae vitae, the papal encyclical upholding the traditional Christian teaching against artificial contraception. The majority of Catholics rejected the holding of the pope, and many bishops and priests did also. Pope Paul VI, the author of the encyclical, famously said, even before that, that “the smoke of Satan” has entered the Church. The encyclical predicted what would happen if the people rejected his rulings, including the collapse of the traditional family. he did not see the collapse of morale among the clergy which led the bishops to tolerate moral laxity among their subordinates, or even to succumb themselves to such things.