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

[Presbylicious]

Hey folks,

First, please understand that this isn't intended to be an attack. I understand fully the degree to which Catholics venerate the Pope, which is precisely [i]why [/i]I'm asking this question.

Also please note that I'm not naive enough to think this is just a Roman Catholic problem. In fact, I know a girl who grew up in a Southern Baptist church who refuses to have anything to do with Christianity now because she was sexually assaulted by a member of the leadership.

My self-professed 'anti-theist' atheist friend keeps posting news articles about the Roman Catholic Church and the rapidly unfolding scandal of sexual abuse within it. He keeps pointing out how Cardinal Ratzinger allegedly knew about sex abuse which was going on in his own diocese and, as Pope, the Church at large, and did nothing about it.

I'm interested in being armed with knowledge to the contrary, since although I'm not Catholic, I am a -very- firm believer that if one part of the Church is hurting, we all are hurt.

From Wikipedia:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI"]http://en.wikipedia....pe_Benedict_XVI[/url]

[quote]German media reported in March 2010 on a former priest, Father Peter Hullermann from Essen, who in 1979 had been accused of sexually abusing several boys, and who admitted the accusations.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#cite_note-warnings-113"][114][/url][/sup] In accordance with then-standard procedure within the Church, the allegations were not reported to police but instead Hullermann was sent to undergo psychiatric therapy.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#cite_note-warnings-113"][114][/url][/sup] Because the psychiatrist was located in Munich, Ratzinger was involved in giving formal approval to the transfer and in securing housing for Hullermann in the Munich area.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#cite_note-time-114"][115][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#cite_note-herald-115"][116][/url][/sup] On February 1, 1980, soon after his therapy began, Hullermann was assigned to pastoral duties in a Munich parish where he again abused minors.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#cite_note-warnings-113"][114][/url][/sup] The reassignment was carried out in a memorandum written by Fr. Gerhard Gruber, who at the time served as Ratzinger's deputy in the role of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicar_general"]vicar general[/url].[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#cite_note-told-116"][117][/url][/sup] In March 2010, Gruber assumed full responsibility for the decision to readmit Hullermann to pastoral care work, saying "The repeated employment of [Hullermann] in parish ministry was a grave mistake. I take full responsibility for it."[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#cite_note-herald-115"][116][/url][/sup] However, the [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times"]New York Times[/url][/i] reported on March 24, 2010 that Ratzinger had been copied on Gruber's memo, and the archdiocese confirmed that Ratzinger's office had received a copy.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#cite_note-told-116"][117][/url][/sup] The Rev. Lorenz Wolf told the newspaper that the memo was routine and was "unlikely to have landed on the archbishop's desk", although he was unable to say for certain that Ratzinger had not read it.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#cite_note-told-116"][117][/url][/sup] The psychiatrist treating Hullermann had warned church authorities that the priest should not be allowed to work with children, although he never spoke directly to Cardinal Ratzinger.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#cite_note-warnings-113"][114][/url][/sup][/quote]

Edited April 3, 2010 by Presbylicious

[MIKolbe]

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.

[Presbylicious]

[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] Could the Pope ever [i]be [/i]sent to a civil court?

Serious question: as far as I know (I can't remember where I heard this), Vatican City is its own city-state with its own government separate from that of Italy, and Italy itself has a non-extradition/prosecution treaty with the Vatican such that it could not prosecute any member of the Roman Catholic heirarchy even if it wanted to.

The 'best' (if indeed he is guilty of a crime) that could be done would be that Germany would issue a warrant for his arrest. Would Germany be daring enough to issue a warrant to arrest the Pope?

[organwerke]

Besides that there are no sure proofs for these facts (I mean, that the pope knew and covered them), all these facts happened when Benedict XVI was "simply" card. Ratzinger.
Why are these journalists etc. asking for a trial now that he is pope, and why didn't they accuse him before he became Pope, if they thought he was guilty?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='03 April 2010 - 06:47 AM' timestamp='1270288042' post='2085957']
Hey folks,

First, please understand that this isn't intended to be an attack. I understand fully the degree to which Catholics venerate the Pope, which is precisely [i]why [/i]I'm asking this question.

Also please note that I'm not naive enough to think this is just a Roman Catholic problem. In fact, I know a girl who grew up in a Southern Baptist church who refuses to have anything to do with Christianity now because she was sexually assaulted by a member of the leadership.

My self-professed 'anti-theist' atheist friend keeps posting news articles about the Roman Catholic Church and the rapidly unfolding scandal of sexual abuse within it. He keeps pointing out how Cardinal Ratzinger allegedly knew about sex abuse which was going on in his own diocese and, as Pope, the Church at large, and did nothing about it.

I'm interested in being armed with knowledge to the contrary, since although I'm not Catholic, I am a -very- firm believer that if one part of the Church is hurting, we all are hurt.

From Wikipedia:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI"]http://en.wikipedia....pe_Benedict_XVI[/url]
[/quote]
The Pope, or his staff has not committed any crimes. EVERY organization sent these people to therapy because that was the standard shrink advice of the day. His office handled the transfer, there was nothing wrong with the transfer, again it was STANDARD MEDICAL advice to give these people a new start. The school districts did EXACTLY the same thing. It is not against the law to follow standard procedures.

Again there is this fallacy of applying todays standard of care to 20 -30 -40 years ago, it can't be done.

[Semper Catholic]

[quote name='organwerke' date='03 April 2010 - 08:02 AM' timestamp='1270299733' post='2085971']
Besides that there are no sure proofs for these facts (I mean, that the pope knew and covered them), all these facts happened when Benedict XVI was "simply" card. Ratzinger.
Why are these journalists etc. asking for a trial now that he is pope, and why didn't they accuse him before he became Pope, if they thought he was guilty?
[/quote]

This information probably wasn't available at the time. I don't think any journalists were going to sit on the story and take their chances he would be named Pope.

Regardless it's a sucky situation all around, and a continued failure of action regarding this issue by the Church.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='03 April 2010 - 07:34 AM' timestamp='1270298095' post='2085969']
Could the Pope ever [i]be [/i]sent to a civil court?

Serious question: as far as I know (I can't remember where I heard this), Vatican City is its own city-state with its own government separate from that of Italy, and Italy itself has a non-extradition/prosecution treaty with the Vatican such that it could not prosecute any member of the Roman Catholic heirarchy even if it wanted to.

The 'best' (if indeed he is guilty of a crime) that could be done would be that Germany would issue a warrant for his arrest. Would Germany be daring enough to issue a warrant to arrest the Pope?
[/quote]

Someone is trying to sue the Vatican in Civil Court right now, I think out of Ohio. BTW you'd never want to sue the Pope - he's too poor But sue the Vatican and you could theoretically "win" all the property the Church owns.

This suit is going through the Appeals process, I think it is either at the Court of Appeals level or possibly set in front of the Supreme Court. The last I heard on it was that the last court (either the District Court, or the Court of Appeals I can't remember) basically said you can't sue a country - sovereign immunity. The Plaintiff is trying to sue based on an respondiat supereior theory. Their arguing that the Church is similar to a corporation, and that if the employees (priests) of a corporation are doing illegal things, and the directors (bishops, Pope) know about it and don't fire them, they're responsible as well (they've ratified the actions).

The corporation argument, while creative, is not very convincing IMO. The Vatican is a sovereign entity.

As for the Criminal side... Obviously no one could prosecute the Pope for the actual offense. But depending on where the abuse took place (Germany, Wisconsin, Ireland) and their local laws I would say its possible to put the Pope on trial for something like obstruction of evidence, possible failure to report - it would just depend on that jurisdiction's laws. I don't know all the laws in every state.

[Groo the Wanderer]

There is also the fallacious tendency to confuse the hierarchy of the Church and its working with a modern 20-21st century corporation. Simply put, the Pope does not nor should not be involved in every detail of every diocese. The local ordinary (bishop) is the head of the particular church. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome so he is the head of that particular church. As successor to the See of Peter, he has primacy over the other bishops (and indeed all of Christianity) but he is not a CEO, President, or Chairman of the Board.

To try to pin on the Pope the misdeeds of any bishop or priest (or deacon, brother, or nun) is inane and smacks of ignorance of how the Church works. The Pope is not a dictator or a tyrant. He is a shepherd of shepherds. To follow the faulty logic train so many people including the leftist media wish to ride, one would also have to hold Pope St. Sylvester I responsible for the spread of Arianism in the 4th century, Pope St. Celestine I for the spread of Nestorianism shortly thereafter, or Pope St. Innocent I for the unlawful banishment of St. John Chrysostom in the early 5th century. After all, these shameful incidents yea even scandals, occurred under their watches. Dang the facts and ignore that they actively worked against these issues. Today's media would call for their resignations anyway.

Pope Benedict XVI has worked had to bring these cases into the light so that healing can take place. He has vociferously condemned the actions of those who abused and those who covered up the abuse. Shall we ignore the facts for a witchhunt? I half (well more than half) expect the enemies of Christ to declare the Pope a witch and call for him to be burned at the stake after the testimony of unnamed witnesses has established that he floats and weighs the same as a duck...

[Winchester]

Even had he "ignored" the problem, are we going to go back and jail all the other authorities at the time who ignored the problem in the same way? People are judging the actions of the Church by today's standards and ignoring the fact that all of society acted in the same way (and really has changed little). The government still does this, although they "register" the sex offenders. This has resulted in more than one murder by sex predators. Shall we now jail judges, legislators, defense attorneys, jurors and all those involved with not sufficiently protecting us?

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='rkwright' date='03 April 2010 - 10:47 AM' timestamp='1270306041' post='2086004']
Someone is trying to sue the Vatican in Civil Court right now, I think out of Ohio. BTW you'd never want to sue the Pope - he's too poor But sue the Vatican and you could theoretically "win" all the property the Church owns.

This suit is going through the Appeals process, I think it is either at the Court of Appeals level or possibly set in front of the Supreme Court. The last I heard on it was that the last court (either the District Court, or the Court of Appeals I can't remember) basically said you can't sue a country - sovereign immunity. The Plaintiff is trying to sue based on an respondiat supereior theory. Their arguing that the Church is similar to a corporation, and that if the employees (priests) of a corporation are doing illegal things, and the directors (bishops, Pope) know about it and don't fire them, they're responsible as well (they've ratified the actions).

The corporation argument, while creative, is not very convincing IMO. The Vatican is a sovereign entity.

As for the Criminal side... Obviously no one could prosecute the Pope for the actual offense. But depending on where the abuse took place (Germany, Wisconsin, Ireland) and their local laws I would say its possible to put the Pope on trial for something like obstruction of evidence, possible failure to report - it would just depend on that jurisdiction's laws. I don't know all the laws in every state.
[/quote]

Priests are employees of the diocese or of their religious order. None of them are 'employed' by the Vatican, which is a sovereign nation. At worst, a diocese can be sued (and shamefully has been). How does one sue a country? It's like Wisconsin trying to sue Russia and prosecuting Putin. You really think he would care or that WI could enforce anything? How futile. What a waste of time. It's obviously just grandstanding and an attempt by the enemies of Christ to work a smear job. Smacks of Chicago-style politics, IMHO.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='Winchester' date='03 April 2010 - 10:54 AM' timestamp='1270306483' post='2086008']
Even had he "ignored" the problem, are we going to go back and jail all the other authorities at the time who ignored the problem in the same way? People are judging the actions of the Church by today's standards and ignoring the fact that all of society acted in the same way (and really has changed little). The government still does this, although they "register" the sex offenders. This has resulted in more than one murder by sex predators. Shall we now jail judges, legislators, defense attorneys, jurors and all those involved with not sufficiently protecting us?
[/quote]


I second the motion on the first three. Jurors are off the hook for now because Americans are mostly ignorant sheep these days, having gotten a poor education at the hands of government-run schools.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' date='03 April 2010 - 09:55 AM' timestamp='1270306523' post='2086009']
Priests are employees of the diocese or of their religious order. None of them are 'employed' by the Vatican, which is a sovereign nation. At worst, a diocese can be sued (and shamefully has been). How does one sue a country? It's like Wisconsin trying to sue Russia and prosecuting Putin. You really think he would care or that WI could enforce anything? How futile. What a waste of time. It's obviously just grandstanding and an attempt by the enemies of Christ to work a smear job. Smacks of Chicago-style politics, IMHO.
[/quote]

I disagree with the futileness of the suit. If they can link the priests to the Pope, as one "corporation", then the assets of the corporation can be seized. They could enforce the judgment against all the parishes in WI or wherever. Its a serious accusation. And after a quick google search it appears that the Plaintiffs won at the district level. The district judge ruled that they could sue the vatican for the negligence of the priests.

Obviously its up for appeal, but I disagree with this is just a waste of time.

[CatherineM]

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.

[Resurrexi]

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)

[Winchester]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' date='03 April 2010 - 10:58 AM' timestamp='1270306697' post='2086010']
I second the motion on the first three. Jurors are off the hook for now because Americans are mostly ignorant sheep these days, having gotten a poor education at the hands of government-run schools.
[/quote]
Fine, no jurors.