Is the Pope a criminal?

[Paolo]

http://www.news.com.au/world/richard-dawkins-promises-to-arrest-pope-benedict-xvi/story-e6frfkyi-1225852464459

ATHEIST campaigner Richard Dawkins has vowed to arrest the Pope for crimes against humanity.

Professor Dawkins has hired a team of lawyers to see if Pope Benedict XVI can be charged over his handling of the sexual abuse scandal engulfing the Roman Catholic Church, according to The Sunday Times.

Professor Dawkins, who wrote The God Delusion, claims that the Pope has shielded paedophile priests from the authorities.

However, he and fellow writer Christopher Hitchens believe they can make a case for arresting the Pope during the Pope's planned visit to Britain in September.

Among the human rights lawyers they have hired is Australian-born barrister Geoffrey Robertson.

They do not believe the Pope will be able to claim diplomatic immunity because he is not recognised as a head of state by the United Nations.

"This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence," Professor Dawkins said
Last year Israel's foreign minister Tzipi Livni was forced to cancel a planned trip to Britain after a British judge was persuaded by Palestinian activists to issue a warrant for her arrest over her role Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2008.

The warrant was later withdrawn.

 

[scottmac]

While the handling of this by the Pope's office was very poor in the extreme, to suggest that the Pope should be arrested for it is laughable.

I wonder what Dawkins has to gain from making a big case of this? Book sales $$$$$$ which IMO is the same as whoring those kids out to make his own atheiest stand.

 

[marinermick]

While the handling of this by the Pope's office was very poor in the extreme, to suggest that the Pope should be arrested for it is laughable.

Is it laughable that he should hide and assist known criminals from being arrested?

 

[serious14]

While the handling of this by the Pope's office was very poor in the extreme, to suggest that the Pope should be arrested for it is laughable.

Is it laughable that he should hide and assist known criminals from being arrested?

+1

Pretty sure that's obstruction of justice and interfering with a police investigation in most countries.

 

[scottmac]

While the handling of this by the Pope's office was very poor in the extreme, to suggest that the Pope should be arrested for it is laughable.

Is it laughable that he should hide and assist known criminals from being arrested?

While he is the public head of the Vatican, do you believe for a second that he would be the one giving instructions?
The pope is a figurehead not a CEO.
The Vatican is HO for what is basically a multinational conglomerate. There would be an army of lawyers, accountants and policy makers which make the decisions of which the Pope would need to be seperate so as to keep his faith in check.

What is needed is not a warrant for the pope but a complete investigation into the operations of the Vatican. Will that ever happen? Could it ever happen?

Meanwhile the author of a book slaming the Popes faith wants a warrant for his arrest??? Load of shite. He wants publicity. There is no chance that the Vatican did not have all bases covered legally when they did what they did in this circumstance.

Besides the Catholic Church could just tie them up in court for many years, they certianly have the funds  to do it.

 

[serious14]

Do some research - he wasn't Pope at the time this occurred. He was instrumental in allowing these cover up's to happen as part of his position within the Church.

 

[serious14]

For what it's worth, Dawkins and Hitchens have been prominent atheists for decades - Hitchens particularly has many well known published works that deal with systematic abuses covered up by many religions - "God Is Not Great" chief amongst them.

 

[marinermick]

Do some research - he wasn't Pope at the time this occurred. He was instrumental in allowing these cover up's to happen as part of his position within the Church.

this

 

[dibo]

Do some research - he wasn't Pope at the time this occurred. He was instrumental in allowing these cover up's to happen as part of his position within the Church.

this

+1

Personally signed letters, etc. He's in it up to his mitre.

 

[Jesus]

While the handling of this by the Pope's office was very poor in the extreme, to suggest that the Pope should be arrested for it is laughable.

Is it laughable that he should hide and assist known criminals from being arrested?

Head of state, is ammune and can do what he likes.

 

[Jesus]

Do some research - he wasn't Pope at the time this occurred. He was instrumental in allowing these cover up's to happen as part of his position within the Church.

this

+1

Personally signed letters, etc. He's in it up to his mitre.

How exactly does this equal crimes against humanity?

There are alot of former politicians all over the world, principals, teachers, head of board of studies, etc etc who fall under the same boat. If he wasnt religous these guys wouldnt care.


That IS a motivated not by the crime, but by his status and belief. Pretty sure that counts as prejudice

 

[scottmac]

Do some research - he wasn't Pope at the time this occurred. He was instrumental in allowing these cover up's to happen as part of his position within the Church.

this

:

The letter was typed in Latin and is part of years of correspondence between the diocese of Oakland, in the United States, and the Vatican about the proposed defrocking of Mr Kiesle, sentenced to three years probation in 1978 for lewd conduct with two young boys in San Francisco.

The Vatican insisted on Saturday that the Pope had done nothing wrong.

A Vatican lawyer said that it was the local bishop, John Cummins of Oakland, California, who bore primary responsibility for protecting children from the abusive priest, and that the Pope had acted appropriately when he declined to take action.

This.

Once again, you can be sure that the Vatican have every angle covered when it comes to matters with the pope, otherwise he would not have been appointed.

 

[scottmac]

A Vatican lawyer said that it was the local bishop, John Cummins of Oakland, California, who bore primary responsibility for protecting children from the abusive priest, and that the Pope had acted appropriately when he declined to take action.

''It's the job of the bishop to discipline the priest,'' said the lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, of Berkeley, California, in an email to the Los Angeles Times. ''The Pope is not a five-star general ordering his troops around. That is simply an incorrect idea about the allocation of authority as between the Pope and his fellow bishops.''

In the letter, Cardinal Ratzinger - who was at the time the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has responsibility for tackling abuse by clerics - said the ''good of the universal church'' needed to be considered in any defrocking.

Mr Kiesle was ultimately defrocked in 1987. In 2004, he was sentenced to six years in prison after admitting molesting a young girl in 1995. Now aged 63, he is on the registered sex offenders list in California.

The Vatican says the Pope was exercising due caution before sacking the priest.

The decision not to defrock Father Gallanagh is likely to prove embarrassing for the church in Britain, which has until now escaped being dragged into the crisis that has engulfed the church in several countries.

Telegraph, London, Los Angeles Times

There is no way that this action will bear a result so why do it?

 

[Jesus]

Ultimately the Vatican has become more legal savy in their dealings in america, after initially offere=ing moral apologies, the courts in those cases took them as admission of guilt and gave massive damages.

As a result you can expect very little help or apolgises from the vatican.

 

[marinermick]

Ultimately the Vatican has become more legal savy in their dealings in america, after initially offere=ing moral apologies, the courts in those cases took them as admission of guilt and gave massive damages.

???

law suit is in Britian

 

[curious]

I can't believe there are guys on this forum that are, by proxy, attempting to protect the pope (and church?) or lessen the seriousness of the child abuse by attacking the motives of his accusers. He, and his church have millions of accusers wanting those inside the church (all denominations)  to be held accountable.  Do we all have dark motives? If by attempting to charge the pope, and there is growing evidence he was complicit as a cardinal in his knowledge of crimes, attention to can be drawn to the official cover ups and denials by the church in protecting their reputation, and force structural change so it stops, then go hard. Very hard.

 

[scottmac]

Ultimately the Vatican has become more legal savy in their dealings in america, after initially offere=ing moral apologies, the courts in those cases took them as admission of guilt and gave massive damages.

???

law suit is in Britian

What he means is once bitten twice shy, the Vatican will offer nothing in this case which admits guilt. Maybe a few local bishops will cop the chop but the Pope will be beyond touchable. Also i am sure they wouldn't mind throwing a few dollars at it to make it go away but crimes against humanity??? As if.

 

[curious]

A Vatican lawyer said that it was the local bishop, John Cummins of Oakland, California, who bore primary responsibility for protecting children from the abusive priest, and that the Pope had acted appropriately when he declined to take action.

''It's the job of the bishop to discipline the priest,'' said the lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, of Berkeley, California, in an email to the Los Angeles Times. ''The Pope is not a five-star general ordering his troops around. That is simply an incorrect idea about the allocation of authority as between the Pope and his fellow bishops.''

In the letter, Cardinal Ratzinger - who was at the time the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has responsibility for tackling abuse by clerics - said the ''good of the universal church'' needed to be considered in any defrocking.

Mr Kiesle was ultimately defrocked in 1987. In 2004, he was sentenced to six years in prison after admitting molesting a young girl in 1995. Now aged 63, he is on the registered sex offenders list in California.

The Vatican says the Pope was exercising due caution before sacking the priest.

The decision not to defrock Father Gallanagh is likely to prove embarrassing for the church in Britain, which has until now escaped being dragged into the crisis that has engulfed the church in several countries.

Telegraph, London, Los Angeles Times

There is no way that this action will bear a result so why do it?

To bring further attention to the history of not being held accountable for numerous crimes, the covering of those crimes and the allowance of known perpetrators to continue.

 

[Jesus]

I dont see the same people inditing howard bush blair and co for crimes against humanity.

But pope is immune regardless. And if he wasnt, doubt he would not get pardoned.

 

[scottmac]

I can't believe there are guys on this forum that are, by proxy, attempting to protect the pope (and church?) or lessen the seriousness of the child abuse by attacking the motives of his accusers. He, and his church have millions of accusers wanting those inside the church (all denominations)  to be held accountable.  Do we all have dark motives? If by attempting to charge the pope, and there is growing evidence he was complicit as a cardinal in his knowledge of crimes, attention to can be drawn to the official cover ups and denials by the church in protecting their reputation, and force structural change so it stops, then go hard. Very hard.

Read the posts again and tell me where the pope is being defended or that the abuse suffered by many youngsters was lessened??  Stretch much?

The motives of the accusers should be questioned because he stands to gain much by having this type of publicity.