You wrote:
“You can make semantic arguments all day, and accomplish nothing. The Pope is making the argument that he is entitled to the immunity that is to be accorded to a “foreign sovereign” in a host jurisdiction. So it is not my argument.”
Where did he make such an argument? I don’t think the pope said a word about this. The headline says it was the Vatican. The aricle says “a top Vatican legal official said on Thursday.” I don’t see the pope saying anything on this. This already known to anyone who has every studied international law anyway.
“Furthermore, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” How does the Pope’s assertion of soverign immunity accord with this lesson?”
Simple. 1) As the head of state he owes nothing to Caesar because he is Caesar in Vatican City and no foreign power has any authority over him. 2) He renders to God His due. That’s why he always opposed the abuse of children and has acted so steadfastly to stamp it out.
I am not sure I will understand, if you argue that this position cannot be attributed to the Pope.
Simple. 1) As the head of state he owes nothing to Caesar because he is Caesar in Vatican City and no foreign power has any authority over him.
Not so simple. The Pope enjoys the benefits of doing business in Ceasar's jurisdiction, where Ceasar collects taxes, prosecutes crimes and redresses harms caused by the agents of the Vatican (I am making a hypothetical argument here becauise I do not believe that the Pope is guilty of crime or tortious conduct). So if you intend to argue that the Pope's authority in the host jurisdictions is etherial only and has a corporeal presence only in Vatical City, you can spare me the pedantry.