Officer, Arrest That Pope!

Whilst I agree the covering up of crimes is illegal, and in a moral sense worse than the original crime which was committed by a sick person but the cover-up is committed by a mentally healthy person, there are very real reasons not to.

The whole mechanism of diplomacy is dependant on the special status of diplomats. Pariah states could legally issue dead or alive orders for people they dont like...the President of the US for example, for war crimes or knowing of war crimes and supressing them. Most of the allied general staff in WWII are guilty of suppressing information about war crimes, and many crimes were committed after the war against POW's and civilians. What about black ops ? Are we to hand over our soldiers or our commanders to the enemy ? What about our spies ?

At the heart of the issue is the renamed Office of the Inquisition which believes in banning books and keeping priests if they rape children but not if they disagree with the Pope. Going for the current Pope who was head of that office might even turn out to be a good idea, but the office under its current name The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is still an inquistion by nature. It continues to commit crimes against humanity just like the good old days but is very slowly losing power. Another thousand years and it might not exist, but until it does disappear it will continue the tradition of might is right.

Britain does not have a written constitution, so I'd be surprised if we were talking about constitutional lawyers. We're talking about human rights lawyers. And if they're good at their job, they know that announcing a trial can be good PR even if their legal claim is itself bad law.

In my opinion as a non-lawyer and interested layman, the weakness of Hitchens's and Dawkins's case isn't that the Vatican is a state. It's that the pope isn't guilty of crimes against humanity. Granted, rape qualifies as such a crime. But the pope didn't rape these boys. He didn't order his priests to rape them. His only offense is passivity in reporting the crimes to authorities, and in disciplining the criminals within his organization. And although that's a scandal, it doesn't rise to the level of crimes against humanity.

but, people are outraged.

Oops, I forgot. You're right, that clinches it.

i look at the pope (popes) in the same light as manson, didn't pull the trigger, but was completely complicit in the murders (or the popes case assaults)

On the other hand, Dawkins is clearly evil. Did you see his picture in the Times? They're not saying he's the anti-Christ, but then again, they don't have to.

I don't know enough about Manson and his commune to affirm or rebut this confidently. But if Wikipedia has it right, "he was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, carried out by members of the group at his instruction." The pope, by contrast, didn't instruct the priests to rape those boys. And if Manson hadn't instructed his followers to commit the murders, he wouldn't have gone to jail for feet-dragging. That's a big difference between the Pope and Manson.

I think his complicity in moving priests around, putting them into situations where further abuse could - and did - occur, moves him out of "passivity".

Perhaps it does, but it also doesn't move him into the realm of committing, or ordering, crimes against humanity. I guess it comes back to my first post. I don't think Hitchens's case holds water legally, but it's a good PR initiative to get his point across: The pope has no credible claim on being a moral authority, and religion is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Perhaps not "crimes against humanity", but I do think that in a number of jurisdictions his actions would be considered chargeable offences.

On the flip side, in Canada, they just sue for this sort of activity, which is why a number of parishes are having to sell off everything. No physical church left in some areas.

Sue the Vatican. That works.

I can just picture St Peter as a perfect conference center for McKinsey types.

but at a certain point the pope (s) knew this was happening, and they moved people on (to places where they committed new crimes), so at the very least they were complicit in the crimes, complicit in covering up the crimes, and by not turning them over to the authorities they harbored criminals, got to be some jail time in all that

I'm not sure. Is it illegal in Britain to know of a crime and not report it? Anyway, I'm not saying what the pope did was right. It just wasn't a crime against humanity.

Not sure about Britain, but in Canada if you suspect child abuse and don't report it, you can be charged. If you know for sure and don't report it - worse horsepuckytrouble.

Wow -- this pope better not come to Canada then! No butter tarts for him!

or poutine.
or peameal bacon.

and who'd play Scrabble with him?

Maybe it isn't possible to actually arrest the pope, but it would be helpful to at least try to sue the Vatican for not reporting these vicious crimes against children to proper authorities. Wouldn't that at least create a slight detriment to the continuance of these horrible acts????

My best friend was raped by a priest (18 yr. old) as she waited in a hallway for her mother to complete her business in a church office. Right there in the hallway, a quickie. When she told her mother, her dear mom said, "What are you talking about, girl?" The subject was never raised again.

It's the fear. People have to make some strong moves to create maybe a smidgen of fear in these men - and they are only men.

The great damage in child molestation is that the child, born to trust, thinks there must be something wrong with them to be treated like that...it had to have been something they did to be treated so badly...they develop guilt.

What is required is for the public to have a public display of outrage. Floggings for rape in the main street either by the victim or a substitute would reinstall at least the start of the idea that it is the perpetrator who has something wrong with them and not the victim.

The history of the Catholic church is an evil story of sexual abuse. One Pope raped so many women that no-one would go to St Peters for confession. Another Pope had a dinner party where little naked boys jumped out of cakes. Medieval monasteries were encouraged to take young boys to bed to keep them warm in the winter nights. When the Papacy moved back to Rome from Avignon they took great pride that they left it with more brothels than any other city, having found it with almost none. One Pope was murdered by an angry husband having been caught in the act with his wife.

As the topic is about Britain, I should add that celibacy never took off there and priests continued to marry right up till the Protestant movement as they could not live without two working the local church field.

Dont put too much faith in what has been outlawed or stated by the Vatican....today they outlaw sexual abuse, but they have also outlawed bull fighting and had issued many proclamations condemning interest on loans. Now they own a bank and bullfighting still thrives.

I find the imagery and scripture compelling,
Revelations 17:1-4,6.. judgment of the great whore. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color.


and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication

If this doesn't fit the RCC,then who They perpetuate paganism, idolatry, mysticism and extra religious traditions. According to the RCC you can be absolved of your sins with confession and a few hale Mary's. Quite possibly this is what has been done with all these pedophile offenders and feel they are absolved of their fornications.
The true church is a "chaste virgin" and the false church is "the Great Whore." The church Peter established would be ashamed of the glitz and glamour of this RCC. Quite possibly it is a wolf in sheeps clothing.