Dawkins wants to arrest the pope

[EvilNed]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.

Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.

The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed arguing that the “good of the universal church” should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases.

RELATED LINKS
Children who front atheist ads are evangelicals
Dawkins aims to convert Islam to evolution
Benedict will be in Britain between September 16 and 19, visiting London, Glasgow and Coventry, where he will beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman, the 19th-century theologian.

Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.

They have commissioned the barrister Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens, a solicitor, to present a justification for legal action.

The lawyers believe they can ask the Crown Prosecution Service to initiate criminal proceedings against the Pope, launch their own civil action against him or refer his case to the International Criminal Court.

Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said: “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.”

Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, said: “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment."

Last year pro-Palestinian activists persuaded a British judge to issue an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, the Israeli politician, for offences allegedly committed during the 2008-09 conflict in Gaza. The warrant was withdrawn after Livni cancelled her planned trip to the UK.

“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens. “Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature.”

[JDFP]

Oh, Richard Dawkins, the Atheist's everyman... why don't you hurry up and die and save the world the trouble of dealing with your absurdity?

Yet again the liberal media machine is having a field day with this nonsense and absurdity. I have nothing but absolute contempt towards this nut-job. What's next, Dick, are you going to support the arrest of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for their support of prisoners? Not counting the hate speech of Jeremiah Wright that would verge on treason if as early as 50 years ago? Oh, wait, no... you can't do that. That would be racist because they're black! Are you going to support the arrest of Jewish religious leaders who have supported the displacement of Palestinians as being a crime against humanity? No, can't do that either, that's anti-Semitic!

Yet, it's perfectly fine and, in fact, in tune with contemporary ideology to attack Rome because that's not inflammatory or racist or anti-Semitic in anyway whatsoever. Sure, let's keep taking shots at Rome in response to the less than 2% of clergy that have been "accused" in some manner of lewd conduct or behavior. Meanwhile, we should ignore the fact (as the media does) that just as many, or more, cases of lewd behavior/conduct have been labeled against Protestant and Jewish authorities as well for their clergy/rabbi's. But, no, we can't say that because it's hate-speech!

The sword of double-standards has yet again triumphed. Go ahead, Richard, attempt to arrest the Vicar of Christ with your liberal trumpeters of stupidity, and ensure that your writing career of absurdest postmodernist drivel is cut short. If the time ever came to take up arms for my faith in protection of it, you better believe I'd be on the side of Rome come that battle.

j.p.

[Publius]

Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.

. . . .

“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens. “Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature.”

What lunatics. The Holy See is a "permanent observer" at the UN with "Non-Member State" status. In other words, the UN recognizes the Holy See as a state which has elected not to join the UN. The same status that Switzerland had until fairly recently (when the Swiss decided to go for full membership). The Pope is the head of state of the Holy See. His entitlement to diplomatic immunity is not a serious question.

[DubiousComforts]

If the time ever came to take up arms for my faith in protection of it, you better believe I'd be on the side of Rome come that battle
Dude, what the hell? This sounds every bit as ridiculous as the atheists.

[EvilNed]

I think this is awesome. The Pope is a despicable symbol of oppression and if I believed in Good and Evil (which I don't) I know in which plane I'd put him.

I doubt they're really expecting a trial. I see this more as a demonstration to make people wake up as to what disgusting beast this dude is.

[Kaos]

Let's reduce this to the essential facts. Dawkins does not support the rape of children as evidenced by his actions, and the pope does support the rape of children as evidenced by his actions. Everything else is a feeble attempt to obfuscate the essential facts.

[Danny]

Let's reduce this to the essential facts. Dawkins does not support the rape of children as evidenced by his actions, and the pope does support the rape of children as evidenced by his actions. Everything else is a feeble attempt to obfuscate the essential facts.

true enough, take away the religious aspect and this man and his organization have harbored, protected and covered up many, many pedophiles.

Dont get me wrong this "legal ambush" sounds stupid too. theres just far too many people using the christian religion to cover that these men have literally fucked these christian peoples kids. Somethings gotta give eventually.

[JDFP]

Dude, what the hell? This sounds every bit as ridiculous as the atheists.

Actually, standing up for something greater than yourself is the complete opposite of everything that Atheism promotes.

j.p.

---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------


I think this is awesome. The Pope is a despicable symbol of oppression and if I believed in Good and Evil (which I don't) I know in which plane I'd put him.

I doubt they're really expecting a trial. I see this more as a demonstration to make people wake up as to what disgusting beast this dude is.

His Holiness is a symbol of Christ on earth as the vicar until Christ's return. At least I believe this within my faith. I don't expect you to accept my theological ideology nor would I ever attempt to ram my beliefs down your throat (we as Catholics are against that, and anyone who attempts to do so is going against the teachings of the Second Vatican Council); nor do I attempt to attack your theological (or lack thereof) ideology or beliefs (even though I rightfully will attack the secular religion of Communism as being the murderous regime under people like Stalin and Mao). The phrases you use above to describe my faith I take the same way as a black person in hearing the N-word or calling a Jew a dog or saying that the Holocaust never happened or that it was made up. The difference between someone like Dawkins and someone like a Holocaust denier is that it's perfectly okay to be anti-Catholic, but it's a cultural taboo to be against Judaism or other religious ideologies made up of minorities. I don't mean this as an offense against you, Ned, but it's how I see things from my perspective and deal with it as being a minority Catholic in a primarily ignorant Protestant city on a daily basis.

It's a double fucking standard that makes me ill. It's fine to say whatever you want about my beliefs and my faith, but it's taboo to speak negatively about other cultures or religions because that's just not "acceptable" by society's standards. I guarantee you that if we had one person on this board that said the Holocaust never happened (I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT) or calling Jewish rabbi's "scum" because of their actions against Palestinians the topic would be closed within five minutes by a moderator here because of the virulent attacks that would take place. But, by all means, be as anti-Catholic as you want, that's perfectly A-okay.

I find attacks against His Holiness and my faith to be personal in nature when they devolve from intelligent conversations on the issues into words such as "despicable", "oppression", "disgusting", and "beast".

j.p.

[EvilNed]

Are you saying that pedophilia transcends mankind!?

(Oh, and by the way, I do believe the way that Pope has dealt with pedophilia is disgusting. Your faith is not in issue here, not with me. The Pope is. The Pope is, in my view, a dick that needs to be prosecuted. Faith or not faith.)

[JDFP]

Are you saying that pedophilia transcends mankind!?

(Oh, and by the way, I do believe the way that Pope has dealt with pedophilia is disgusting. Your faith is not in issue here, not with me. The Pope is. The Pope is, in my view, a dick that needs to be prosecuted. Faith or not faith.)

Of course not. Those who have done wrongly and have been convicted of such should be punished to the full extent of the law. I completely agree with that. However, it's a media frenzy of anti-Catholicism in going after the oldest and most traditional religion on earth moreso than a matter of facts. There have been just as many accusations against clergy from other religions and ideologies as there have been against Catholicism (if not more). The difference is that Catholicism is the oldest and most traditional and so, naturally, the liberal media would go after them in attack more than any other religion or ideology.

The question is whether or not Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger did or did not act accordingly to canon law in his actions as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. If this is the case that he did act inappropriately against canon law in his position then that's another debate and we could discuss the issue of canon law and actions within this law within his former position. This issue is whether or not Ratzinger acted accordingly to canon law within the framework as established in his position. I do not know all the facts in that matter, nor do any of us as of yet until an investigation in the matter is done. If we want to attack his actions, then we should do so accordingly to the canon law that is established and based -- such as looking at reforms within canon law and responses. I agree with this. As an individual we can discuss Cardinal Ratzinger within that frame-work, but that does not detract from his responsibility and office as papal head of the faith. If he did not act accordingly to the framework of the law, then yes, I agree, he should resign from office. However, I still respect the important and essential role he has within the framework of the faith.

j.p.

[MikePizzoff]

I love when people call atheists nutjobs while they believe in some imaginary being that "created everything" and has this crazy party place for after you die.

Oh yeah and there's also the guy that lives in the center of the Earth, so if you "sin" when alive, then you will eternally burn in his flames when dead.

Don't let me forget the people that have golden rings that float above their head and wings which allow them to fly to the clouds!

Those bones/fossils archeologists discover in the Earth of giant dinosaurs? They were fabricated and planted there by humans, because there was no such thing as creatures on Earth before man was "created".

Yeah, atheists sure are whacked, huh?

[JDFP]

I love when people call atheists nutjobs while they believe in some imaginary being that "created everything" and has this crazy party place for after you die.

Oh yeah and there's also the guy that lives in the center of the Earth, so if you "sin" when alive, then you will eternally burn in his flames when dead.

Don't let me forget the people that have golden rings that float above their head and wings which allow them to fly to the clouds!

Those bones/fossils archeologists discover in the Earth of giant dinosaurs? They were fabricated and planted there by humans, because there was no such thing as creatures on Earth before man was "created".

Yeah, atheists sure are whacked, huh?

No, some Atheists (a minority of them) make valid and strong arguments for their beliefs / lack of beliefs. However, the vast majority of them (like Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, that idiot Bill Maher, and others) are perfectly content with believing in Atheism in an attack on Christianity on a 3rd grade level.

The Christians you discuss above, well, if that's what that want to believe Christianity is are also living and believing it on a 3rd grade level as well. Unfortunately, the majority of Christians are perfectly content in living and following their ideas on this third grade level and it gives the rest of us a bad name for our religion. For one, an educated Christian could easily tell you that the Theory of Evolution does not detract from or contradict Christian principles or teachings in the least.

Fundamentalists are usually idiots regardless of religious persuasion or lack of religious persuasion (in that regard, Christianity and Atheism have something they mutually share in common).

:)

j.p.

[SRP76]

Fuck religion. The issue is whether or not the Pope participated in a coverup of child molestation. If he did, and there is reasonable proof of it, then he should be arrested. I don't give a shit who you are, Pope or not - it's illegal. Get it through.

If there is not any reasonable evidence of his participation, then he should not be arrested.

That's a real simple situation. People need to stop trying to make it a religious war, and hiding behind beliefs. Beliefs are irrelevant. It's "did he commit a crime, or did he not".

[Legion2213]

Dawkins is a complete fucking tool - As an athiest/infidel/non-beliver, this dick head does not represent me...but then again, I am not an extremist, fanatical athiest...

As for arresating the Pope, good luck with that mate. Maybe when you've done that you can challenge leaders of "less passive" religions who also have child abusers in their ranks...see you outside the mosque, Dawko...well, bits of you.

[EvilNed]

Seeing as the Pope is the head of an institution that protects child molestors, I see him as directly responsible. That maybe a bit vain of me, but as long as the Pope has not actively pursued bringing ALL of his pet child molestors to justice, he's guilty in my book. Dude needs to get his ass to court.

I doubt the Pope is going to get arrested here (altough I wish he would) but I see this as an awesome demonstration of just how fucked up that institution is. I doubt Dawkins sees this as anything other than a demonstration. Of course. It could work. I hope it does.

[Publius]

Fuck religion. The issue is whether or not the Pope participated in a coverup of child molestation. If he did, and there is reasonable proof of it, then he should be arrested. I don't give a shit who you are, Pope or not - it's illegal. Get it through.


Assuming for the sake of argument that there is reasonable proof of it, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that he should be arrested, at least by non-Vatican authorities. You still have the problem of diplomatic immunity, as I mentioned above.


as long as the Pope has actively pursued bringing ALL of his pet child molestors to justice, he's guilty in my book

Huh?

[EvilNed]

I forgot to put a NOT in there. Sorry. Bottom line, Pope's a pedo-loving dick.

[JDFP]

I forgot to put a NOT in there. Sorry. Bottom line, Pope's a pedo-loving dick.

Simplistic horseshit.

Of course, there's only one thing in the world that could be worse than having an accusation of wrongfully harboring vile criminals, and that's supporting Communism as it's a man-made religion responsible for murdering over 100 million throughout the world. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could support a cause that has more blood on its hands than any religion or ideology in the existence of humanity. What's even more amazing is that Communism managed to do this in less than 80 years. If you were to take all those killed by organized religion (throughout all time) combined, you wouldn't manage to come up with the same number of people killed and devastated as you would under this man-made philosophy.

Ned, honest question, why is it that you choose to throw cheap shots against the pope while you quote a disgusting murderer with Che in your signature? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'll take my chances with il papa and his teachings any day of the week over following a philosophy with murderers like Che, Castro, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, and all their ilk with their man-made religion of chaos and destruction found in Communism any day of the week.

We should really make an attempt to stop political and religious discussions around here when we can't respect others beliefs/ideologies without breaking down to childish elementary school language -- and I may be guilty myself, to a degree, from time to time, with my strong rhetoric presented here, and elsewhere, against the vileness of Communism. It serves a purpose though in showing that it can go any way against any philosophy or theology -- and attacking the head of a movement is just a disguised way of attacking the actual movement.

We should all stop being a bunch of yo yo's though and move on from religion and politics -- all it does is piss people off here and it never ends well for anyone, that's something I think most of us can agree on.

j.p.

[Exatreides]

Don't bring The holocaust into discussions about Pedophile priests. K? Thanks


-The Forum Jew

[fulci fan]

http://88.80.200.74/web/fun/adults-with-imaginary-friends-are-stupid.jpg

Just a joke. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

[Wyldwraith]

WHOA,
Are you ACTUALLY going to try and draw parallels between the Catholic Church and African Americans/Jews/Other targets of oppression and/or hate-crimes?

There's one big difference there you know...out of the groups mentioned, only the Catholic Church has ever been the dominant controlling force of what was then what we now call the First World.

What did Catholicism do with this power? Let's see, an 800-year-long campaign to suppress literacy. Followed by declaring the printing press a "Tool of Satan", and burning the first individual to translate the Bible into english as a heretic.

Then there are those pesky events like Oh, I dunno...The Inquisition, the Crusades, the various mass-burnings during the numerous declared Heresies. (Most of which were directed towards the extermination of rival sects of Christianity). Establishing and lending religious sanctity to barbaric pseudo-justice like Trial By Ordeal, and (my personal favorite), the systematic torture to elicit confessions to imaginary crimes of individuals whose property the Church coveted/was allowed to seize whenever they could elicit such a coerced confession.

A Christian myself, I am OFFENDED by the very idea of portraying the Catholic Church as some innocent victim of godless heathen persecution.

You blithely mention "the less than 2% of clergy that have been "accused" in some manner of lewd conduct or behavior" as if this is a negligible figure JDFP. Yet what % of clergy are party to the consistent attempt at cover-ups, all in the name of sparing the Church's "good name."

We KNOW, not believe, KNOW that the current Pope assisted child-rapists avoid prosecution for their horrible crimes.

How do you reconcile that fact with your personal beliefs (which I would fight and die to defend your right to have and hold dear) that the "Vicar of Christ" conspires and harbors pedophiles?

How can someone, ANYONE, profess to represent the Savior, who stood for love and understanding between all men and women, and at the same time do something that runs so completely counter to what the Son of God stands for?

That's what I don't get.

Sorry, just had to get that out. Couldn't swallow another chorus of "Oh, the poor victimized Church/Pope".

Sincerest apologies if I have offended anyone's personal beliefs.

[EvilNed]

Simplistic horseshit.


Simplistic, yes. Horseshit, not so much.

I understand that it's must be frustrating that I don't like the Pope, and I understand that as he is part of your belief system. And this whole thing might seem like a big attack on you, when in actuality it ain't.

But let's face it. The Pope is the head of an organization that has protected dozens of pedophiles and gave them "mild" punishments (Subjective view, mind you). Relocating them in unique cases even, rather than just defrocking them.

Here's an example of a rather (to me!) beastly letter that gets passed around behind closed doors inside this organization:


Most Excellent Bishop

Having received your letter of September 13 of this year, regarding the matter of the removal from all priestly burdens pertaining to Rev. Stephen Miller Kiesle in your diocese, it is my duty to share with you the following:

This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner.

It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time.

In the meantime your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible and in addition to explain to same the rationale of this court, which is accustomed to proceed keeping the common good especially before its eyes.

Let me take this occasion to convey sentiments of the highest regard always to you.

Your most Reverend Excellency

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Sorry, but let me state this as clearly as possible: I do not like the clergy, or the Pope because they protect pedophiles. Not in the habit of supporting that kind of thing. Their brushing things under the rug does not sit well with me.

As for Communism... Well, sorry you feel that way.

[Danny]

Simplistic horseshit.

Of course, there's only one thing in the world that could be worse than having an accusation of wrongfully harboring vile criminals, and that's supporting Communism as it's a man-made religion responsible for murdering over 100 million throughout the world. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could support a cause that has more blood on its hands than any religion or ideology in the existence of humanity. What's even more amazing is that Communism managed to do this in less than 80 years. If you were to take all those killed by organized religion (throughout all time) combined, you wouldn't manage to come up with the same number of people killed and devastated as you would under this man-made philosophy.

Ned, honest question, why is it that you choose to throw cheap shots against the pope while you quote a disgusting murderer with Che in your signature? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'll take my chances with il papa and his teachings any day of the week over following a philosophy with murderers like Che, Castro, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, and all their ilk with their man-made religion of chaos and destruction found in Communism any day of the week.

We should really make an attempt to stop political and religious discussions around here when we can't respect others beliefs/ideologies without breaking down to childish elementary school language -- and I may be guilty myself, to a degree, from time to time, with my strong rhetoric presented here, and elsewhere, against the vileness of Communism. It serves a purpose though in showing that it can go any way against any philosophy or theology -- and attacking the head of a movement is just a disguised way of attacking the actual movement.

We should all stop being a bunch of yo yo's though and move on from religion and politics -- all it does is piss people off here and it never ends well for anyone, that's something I think most of us can agree on.

j.p.

dude genuine question, as a christian shouldnt you be more pissed off than the atheists about the covering up of child rape? these are people who have used your religion, the word of your god, to gain your peoples trust so they can take your children and fuck them up the ass because they love it, because taking little timmy from the choir and raping him is just such a great way for one of these sick fucks to get his load blown.
I would think the christians would be infinitely more enraged by this.

[Legion2213]

Just out of interest, who exactly has the current Pope raped/molested?

[Publius]

We KNOW, not believe, KNOW that the current Pope assisted child-rapists avoid prosecution for their horrible crimes.

Honest question: How do we know this? Before the story broke about this letter, it appeared that Ratzinger was pushing the RCC to be more aggressive in responding to sexual abuse allegations, talking about ridding the Church of "filth." He suspended Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legion of Christ, when John Paul II had refused to do so. It's not clear how this Kiesle letter changes the picture. The request to laicize Kiesle came from Kiesle himself. To me, the letter seems to be saying "we're not going to release this guy from his vows right away just because he asked for it, we're going to seriously review these cases." And then he WAS laicized. I haven't heard anything about impeding law enforcement investigations etc.

[EvilNed]

The Pope is the head symbol of the Vatican, and head honcho. Of course, he is human and is capable of error, but I've lost complete faith in the Vatican as a whole, due to their countless covering-ups and deliberate "inactions".

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/29/1554330/suit-vatican-knew-about-priests.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html

"The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal." (As is evident in the letter I posted above)

Of course, this is a "which side do we trust?" debate, but heck. I'm sorry to say it, but I do NOT trust the Vatican or the Pope (And to any catholics out there, let me just say that I think the Dalai Lama is an asshole as well, so I'm not discriminating against you guys).

[SymphonicX]

hmm, another contentious issue.
Personally I hold no love for any religious leader so having him arrested for any crime really doesn't matter to me - if he committed a crime, then he goes to jail - pure and simple. Dawkins is doing this for his own agenda though.

[Mike70]

the pope is a total fucking scumbag, just like all the rest of them. tired ass, old men who, on the one hand hang onto anachronistic, mystically inspired nonsense and on the other, allow children to preyed upon.

the catholic church is a disgusting mass of moose shit. the things that vile institution has perpetrated in the course of its existence ought to turn any decent person's stomach.

when you consider the catholic church's history of murder and pain, the fact that priests are abusing children should come as no surprise.

[AcesandEights]

Fuck religion. The issue is whether or not the Pope participated in a coverup of child molestation. If he did, and there is reasonable proof of it, then he should be arrested. I don't give a shit who you are, Pope or not - it's illegal. Get it through.

This quote made me superimpose the Pope into that scene from Lethal Weapon 2 where that shipping container gets dropped on the South African baddie.

"I have diplomatic immunity!" Ka-Thump!!!

Anyway, no one is going to arrest the Pope, as he is...well, the pope..he is also just living by the cardinal doctrine of the street: "snitches get stitches" :p

[BillyRay]

There's a group of Catholics from Milwaukee who have been raising some hell at the Vatican over this (even got detained by italian police when they protested in person):

http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/53174097.html

(personal note - the school in question where the abuse took place was right across the street from the Catholic grade school I attended as a kid)

We can all agree that pederasty/pedophilia is wrong. Protecting pedophiles, and allowing them to continue their abuse of the innocent is also wrong. I'm not sure why anybody would argue otherwise.

The more that Pope Benedict tries to obfuscate the situation, or declare himself beyond investigation, the worse He & the Catholic Church look in the eyes of the public.

(Papal Infallibility being a pretty recent development when all is said and done)

We're not going to see the Pope arrested over this. In the end, it's just Dawkins keeping his name in the news. I'm no fan of Organized Religion, but I swear some Athiests can be just as zealous as the Fundys...

[JDFP]

dude genuine question, as a christian shouldnt you be more pissed off than the atheists about the covering up of child rape? these are people who have used your religion, the word of your god, to gain your peoples trust so they can take your children and fuck them up the ass because they love it, because taking little timmy from the choir and raping him is just such a great way for one of these sick fucks to get his load blown.
I would think the christians would be infinitely more enraged by this.

Of course I'm outraged. There's no question that there have been serious offenses committed by a small minority of clergy/staff that is absolutely unacceptable. These people that have committed these crimes and have been convicted of said crimes should be punished to the full extent of the law. I don't think anyone in their right mind would question that: I certainly wouldn't question it. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church (this is in response to Wyld) has certainly committed (whether by comission or omission) other atrocities throughout history -- as all organized religion (whether made by faith or man-made as a religion) some terrible actions. The Church has answered for these crimes in the past and still continues to answer for these crimes. However, I would argue that the Church today (under the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council) is certainly not the same Church as it was 400 plus years ago. You can't pinpoint crimes committed 400+ years ago on the current Church or her members in faith. It would be like blaming slavery on all WASP's living today.

My problem, and what gets my blood boiling, is that I believe that the R.C.C. has been unjustly singled out for the same issues that are prevailing EVERY religion and every faith. There have been accusations of wrong-doing amongst every religion and every creed -- just as many of them (if not more) within EVERY religion and sect/faith. The difference with Catholicism, it seems, is that it's culturally okay to be anti-Catholic whereas someone pointing out these same abuses in other religions would either be labeled as anti-Semitic, racist, or other have other taboos labeled against them for pointing this out. It's a double standard that I see all too common. I absolutely believe that the R.C.C. has been singled out for this terrible issue moreso than other faiths that are just as guilty and have had just as many accusations of wrong-doing labeled against them.

I also think that it's inappropriate to call the pope "digusting" or a "dick" or any other uncouth language that Ned has chosen to use in his vitriol against the pope. That's not necessary and it's inappropriate. The question is whether or not Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger acted against canon law in his role as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. I have seen nothing to state that he did act inappropriately in his position as prefect, but I'd be the first calling for his resignation if it is shown that he did willfully and wrongfully act within that position. The questions has never been whether some of these terrible accusations are true or not, but whether the response that Ratzinger gave as prefect was in line with canon law or not. That's the bottom line -- and at this point I've seen nothing showing that his response was against canon law or his authority within the position as prefect at the time.

Anyway, this is the last I have to say on the matter. The rest of the anti-Catholics, Communists (who truly are a blight on humanity), and Atheists can have their field day here ruminating over the "EVIL!!!" R.C.C. while I bow out of this silly and juvenile activity of swapping slurs and insults. I've had enough of it. I just thought I'd put a little common sense and perspective into the matter for the people that aren't left-leaning nut-jobs before bowing out of the equation here. So, have fun following your first amendment right in bashing the R.C.C. as much as you want -- ultimately, no matter what I say or what you say none of us are going to change our opinion on the matter.

j.p.

[Danny]

but I swear some Athiests can be just as zealous as the Fundys...

Sadly thats the nature of the world nowadays, politics ,religion, music, fashion just about anything is perverted down to highschool "US or THEM" mentality. People are too damn scared nowadays to converse, people instead go "okay, ive said why i am unshakably right, now i will let you speak till i have reason to impress why i am right again, and of course i will not listen to you anyway".

We live in a world where there HAS to be a "right", a "winner". the idea that no party in a discussion or a debate on a subject has the correct answer is almost absurd because the cardinal rule of "NO, U!" applies, superseding anything else.

-Though honestly thats more politics leaning than anything else.

I remember when there was a big reveal about catholic priests and pedophillia when i was in high school. The next week in the mandatory religious education class (which sounds very dark, religious cultures of the world studies would have been more appropriate and less 1984) and the teacher who was a very proud out and out catholic said on the topic something like "These men spread the word of my god, but they are NOT my god. they are men, base and low like all of us. If they break the law in such a base and vile way they are criminals in the eyes of the law and my god and deserved to be punished on earth in life, and in hell thereafter"

He was a crass old dude but he was a staunch defender of the ideals of religion doing no harm and this subject is about the most heinous thing you can do. These people arent waging war and killing based on belief, they arent even ranting how dinosaurs were secret tests made from dragons or some such foolishness. there raping there townspeoples children to get there jollies off pure and simple, and thats so wrong its almost beyond words. So as head of this organization the pope needs to be held accountable for harboring these people and covering up hundreds of such cases.
Were religion not involved and he was say, a police chief who did the same, or some form of political leader he would be forced to deal with this. Unfortunately the vatican is probably more untouchable than the u.s government. and WITHOUT ANY COMMENTARY ON WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE the vatican has grown fat on peoples money and suffering for centuries.
I dont believe in any religion, im well known for saying there all madness and just as false as the contents of a harry potter novel. But that doesn't mean i dont respect what it means to people. But this isnt a case ABOUT people anymore and thats the problem. religion should be a spiritual thing between a man and his beliefs he should not answer to a big group just because they say he should. Were further and further every day from genuine theology and spirituality and closer every day to the church of coke and the temple of pepsi.

[BillyRay]

Well, it's like the old saying:

"A church is not a Clubhouse for Saints. It's a Hospital for Sinners."

But in other Vatican news, they've decided the Beatles are alright:

http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=492915&GT1=28102

[darth los]

Oh, Richard Dawkins, the Atheist's everyman... why don't you hurry up and die and save the world the trouble of dealing with your absurdity?

Yet again the liberal media machine is having a field day with this nonsense and absurdity. I have nothing but absolute contempt towards this nut-job. What's next, Dick, are you going to support the arrest of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for their support of prisoners? Not counting the hate speech of Jeremiah Wright that would verge on treason if as early as 50 years ago? Oh, wait, no... you can't do that. That would be racist because they're black! Are you going to support the arrest of Jewish religious leaders who have supported the displacement of Palestinians as being a crime against humanity? No, can't do that either, that's anti-Semitic!

Yet, it's perfectly fine and, in fact, in tune with contemporary ideology to attack Rome because that's not inflammatory or racist or anti-Semitic in anyway whatsoever. Sure, let's keep taking shots at Rome in response to the less than 2% of clergy that have been "accused" in some manner of lewd conduct or behavior. Meanwhile, we should ignore the fact (as the media does) that just as many, or more, cases of lewd behavior/conduct have been labeled against Protestant and Jewish authorities as well for their clergy/rabbi's. But, no, we can't say that because it's hate-speech!

The sword of double-standards has yet again triumphed. Go ahead, Richard, attempt to arrest the Vicar of Christ with your liberal trumpeters of stupidity, and ensure that your writing career of absurdest postmodernist drivel is cut short. If the time ever came to take up arms for my faith in protection of it, you better believe I'd be on the side of Rome come that battle.

j.p.


Well, I'm sure you'll agree that supporting something and actually participating in the crime by helping to cover it up are two different things, which is the case here.

The second rev. Al or Mr. Jackson aid and abet criminals i'll be right there with you. For the time being though, the pope is the oly one in that paragraph who hold sthat distinction.

It's all for the best though. Just another nail in the coffin of religion allowing people to see what bullshit it really is in terms of living up to the impossible pious standards it sets.

Let me clarify before someone gets offended. God is perfect. Religion is something perverted by man to suit his needs in order to control ths sheeple.

More atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than anything else, so no one should really be suprised that they are perverts/sympathizers as well.

:cool:

[JDFP]

More atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than anything else, so no one should really be suprised that they are perverts/sympathizers as well.

:cool:

You know, I said I wasn't going to respond to this thread any more, but I couldn't resist here, Los. You're right, if you include the man-made religion of Communism as a religion then yes, religion has caused some of the greatest atrocities of all time (generally by those who know nil to nothing about their faith and are ignorant). If you're not including Communism, then the 100 million murderered and far more destroyed by Communism has done much greater harm than faith-made religions could ever hope to achieve.

Well thought out post, as usual, Los, even if I disagree you do a good job of expressing your opinions.

j.p.

[EvilNed]

As for the Pope being a dick and disgusting, I don't see why anyone who's pro-pedophilia could be anything BUT.

Okay, Okay, I realize the Pope is not pro-pedophilia. But he is willing to cover these stories up just so that he can save the reputation of his church. Just because anyone believes the Pope is infallible, does not mean I have to abide by that.

As for Catholicism (or even Communism) that's really a different debate altogether. The Pope is what we're here for. And if the Pope is/has been protecting pedophiles (of which there is surfacing some evidence to indicate) then he is a dick. Simple as that.

[darth los]

You know, I said I wasn't going to respond to this thread any more, but I couldn't resist here, Los. You're right, if you include the man-made religion of Communism as a religion then yes, religion has caused some of the greatest atrocities of all time (generally by those who know nil to nothing about their faith and are ignorant). If you're not including Communism, then the 100 million murderered and far more destroyed by Communism has done much greater harm than faith-made religions could ever hope to achieve.

Well thought out post, as usual, Los, even if I disagree you do a good job of expressing your opinions.

j.p.


Thank you. i feel the same about you and your posts. It's crazy that two people who disagree as much as we do hardly ever offend each other in their responses.

Interesting thought though, communsism as a religion. I think there's a distinction between "classic" religion and just beliving in something religiously, (As in Obama has no birth certificate).

Both are very dangerous as anything that humans believe with absolute certainty. When there is that sort of mentality there is no reasoning with the person who thinks that way because in their mind they are in the right, their cause is just and the ends justify the means.

:cool:

[Wyldwraith]

Want to clarify something,
I have no axe to grind against any theistic belief structure, of ANY kind. I do NOT believe in generalized attacks based on sensationalized half-truths and distortions, towards ANYONE.

That said, my problem and anger finds (I BELIEVE), justified marks when individuals use the religious or political sects/movements they are a part of to perpetrate crimes against the whole or part of the society they are a part of.

Again, allow me to reiterate my position that unlike the many cults, fanatical subsets of any of a number of religions, only the Catholic Church has ever maintained a position of military, political, educational and social dominance over "Western Civilization" for any length of time.

Additionally, unlike the many cults that have been destroyed either from within or without when their crimes came to light, and unlike a variety of religious and political subsets that instituted internal reforms, the Catholic Church's modus operandi of Educational, Scientific and Legal oppression only ended when forces beyond the control of the Church FORCED it to end.

JDFP, in the same breath you ask for even-handed, fair-minded discussion of the facts, you launch barbed accusations about "Leftist Nutjobs" (which you identify all such dissenters as).

How can you say that the Church of today is not responsible for 800 years of Anti-Semitic Indoctrination of its parishioners (which is accepted by mainstream sociologists and the majority of varied historians as a fundamental element taken advantage of by the Nazis to inflame the German populace into a frenzy of Anti-Semitism culminating in the holocaust)

I bring up this point specifically because these events happened within the lifetime and homeland of the current Pope. Is that recent enough for relevance in the present?

For that matter, where did supporters of Absolute Monarchy as the only form of righteous government get the idea that Kings and Queens ruled by Divine Right? Only in cultures with very politically dominant priesthoods do we see this concept. In Europe that was the Catholic Church.

JDFP says the modern Catholic Church has taken responsibility for all the atrocities it perpetrated in the past. So, why is it that NOT ONE NAZI has EVER been excommunicated, yet every Communist on the planet was?

How is that accepting responsibility? Yes, the Catholic Church undeniably bears responsibility for the Anti-Semitic atrocities of the Nazis. Just as they bear responsibility for making the Jews the scapegoats/supposed cause of the Black Death before them, which modern historians estimate resulted in a proportional percentage of Jews being rounded up, tortured and burned as during the Holocaust.

The current Pope wrote a paper some fourteen years ago DEFENDING the Church's decision to make the Jews their scapegoat during the Black Death. He cites the relative lack of worth of "The Jewish Minority" to the maintenance of social stability, and states definitively that by becoming the target for the afflicted European populace's rage at the lack of aid the Church and Aristocracy failed to provide, the torture and mass-murder of the Jews served to deflect that rage from the Church, thereby allowing it to survive and continue its efforts to maintain social stability.

Far from accepting culpability for that atrocity, the Catholic Church of TODAY still maintains they were RIGHT in using the Jews as scapegoats during the Black Death, because the Church's survival had more social worth than the entirety of the European Jewish population.

Or how about the Catholic Church of TODAY misinforming MILLIONS of African believers, condemning the condoms that could slow the spread of HIV/AIDS in AIDS-stricken African nations. Taking advantage of the uneducated populace's FAITH in their priests to help them and act in their best interests, to put DOGMA BEFORE HUMAN LIVES.

Current enough to be relevant?

I can go on and on, and ON AND ON in this vein, but I believe I've made my point. So I will end with this:

Last year a Debate was held in the UK. The Question to be debated was: "Is/Has the Catholic Church a/been a force for Good?"

With 440 individuals in attendance, the audience was polled on this question before the debate began, and then again once the debate had concluded.

Before the Debate, 210 individuals voted No. 91 Undecided, and 89 Yes. AFTER the Debate, 301 individuals voted No, 34 Undecided, 65 Yes.

Amazing what a few centuries of historical perspective, a vast increase in the average level of education and the advent of Democracy has done to the Church's image, eh?

Now, I will apologize to anyone who feels offended by what I have said. IF they can point out what untrue or unsupported statement I made that offended them.

Sincerely,
Shawn M. P.

[SymphonicX]

man-made religion of Communism
j.p.

LOL seriously?

[Wyldwraith]

Apparently,
Though what I don't understand is what relevance JDFP's repeated mention of Communism's own atrocities has on the extremely extensive atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church?

To me (and this is ONLY OPINION. I am not inside JDFP's mind), it sounds like an attempt to diminish the relative horror of what the Church has done by comparing their crimes to those of Stalin and Mao.

Oh, interesting tidbit/trivia for the history-minded: The superstition about Friday the 13th being bad luck has its source in the Catholic Church's rounding up, torture of to elicit coerced confessions, seizure of the lands and assets of the tortured, and finally the burning at the stake of the vast majority of the Knights of the Temple, aka the Knights Templar.

And for the fair-minded: Despite their Protestant origins, the Puritans continued the Catholic tradition of Torture-for-Confession to seize the holdings coveted by Puritan community leaders and clergy.

If I have ANY axe to grind, it's against those individuals who desecrate what my Lord and Savior lived and died for, and then profit by their atrocities.

Which is why despite my relationship with God (which I have NO problem cultivating and maintaining MYSELF), I believe that the Organized elements of the three so-called "Religions of the Book" (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), have been hopelessly contaminated by greed, unimaginable suffering and the horrible murders of tens of millions of individuals.

That said, I take equal exception with those Atheists that lump ALL spiritually-minded beliefs in with Organized Religion. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Any conclusions drawn from such comparisons are inherently flawed.

[SymphonicX]

Intelligently said.
I've always rounded it down to one phrase: open to idealogy, not to doctrine.

Personally I find the whole thing absurd but I certainly wouldn't try to hinder anyone's peaceful practise of faith. I do see the whole thing as a means to control one's life. We live very unpredictable, crazy lives and when shit happens to us, we pray to God to feel as though there's something out there that can regulate the madness and put it in context.

Truth is, in my eyes, you'll never make sense of the world nor it's random events. To me God is science, and science is God. It's something that, at this moment, is truly out of our concept of understanding.

Also it's worth mentioning that the "organised" element of religion is as fallable as anything else man made. Dispell the notion that God took a parker pen and jotted down his thoughts, or that it "spoke" to anyone who wasn't by today's standards, batshit crazy, and it's plain and easy to see that the oft-ignored failings of most religious texts purely highlight the failability of human kind and is a reflection of our inner demons - sexism, homophobia, ignorance and prejudice. What I'm saying is, the bible, and all religious texts, are fundamentally flawed (and yes, I have read the qua'ran) as is anything written by a human being. That alone should be enough to make people see some sort of sense...

But alas.

Anyway if the pope is a criminal, I don't care about his religious convictions. He's a criminal, and deserves to be treated as such :)

[EvilNed]

man-made religion of Communism

All religions are man-made, tho.

[Wyldwraith]

More accurate to say all Religions are human-perpetuated,
As SymphonicX pointed out, there in an inherent desire common to all humans to make sense of the inexplicable causes of events which happen to us that are beyond our control.

If/when you accept that basic realization, it becomes much easier to understand why, despite all the very visible negatives attached to the concept of religion that people are so willing to overlook these failings.

Nothing wrong with trying to find one's place in the scheme of things, so long as the seeker keeps the fact that the best they can hope for is to find a personal truth with meaning for THEM foremost in their mind.

Ultimately, it's when people begin to believe they have access to "The Truth" in whole or part that the root of all the horrors stemming from theology is revealed.

It's (IMHO) only when someone feels they've been elevated above others who do not share their belief in this supposed truth that the process of rationalization that allows one group of people to torment or butcher another group can occur.

The search for Truth reminds me a lot of a firearm. Handled responsibly, it can provide many useful services, meeting many important needs. Handled irresponsibly, and it simply becomes an instrument of fear, violence, pain and death.

[SymphonicX]

Yeah I'd agree with you there WW - I think you hit the nail on the head there.

The trouble is, it seems that either the loudest voices are overshadowing the more moderate religious people out there, or that the moderates are in such a small minority that the whole thing is jaded by the fundamental lack of empathy from such a large group of people - that it's almost not worth supporting the moderates because ironically, the intelligent ones are too thin on the ground to find any merit in religion in the grand scheme of things.

[Publius]

Ultimately, it's when people begin to believe they have access to "The Truth" in whole or part that the root of all the horrors stemming from theology is revealed.

It's (IMHO) only when someone feels they've been elevated above others who do not share their belief in this supposed truth that the process of rationalization that allows one group of people to torment or butcher another group can occur.

The search for Truth reminds me a lot of a firearm. Handled responsibly, it can provide many useful services, meeting many important needs. Handled irresponsibly, and it simply becomes an instrument of fear, violence, pain and death.

Doesn't a search for truth presuppose that truth exists and is accessible? Otherwise, what's the point of searching for it? And what does it mean to "believe" something if you don't think it's actually true?

[Danny]

Doesn't a search for truth presuppose that truth exists and is accessible? Otherwise, what's the point of searching for it? And what does it mean to "believe" something if you don't think it's actually true?

well its not such much belief as hope really. thats kind of the point from an athiests perspective. If you were told about events form the bible or kuran or any religious text your first thought would be to ask "prove it" but part of the point with religion is not being able to. of course it sounds mad at face value, that theres an entity, or entities that exist to rule over you, you have never seen them, never will and theres absolutely no proof, but thats sort of the deal anyway. Its more a search for self worth and importance. the universe is unfathomably big and we are the smallest specks that are gone in the blink of an eye, in the grand scheme of things we are utterly pointless in the universe and for many people thats a crushing idea. People want to be special, to be part of some great chosen few. we have kings and rulers that get distinguished above others but for the everyman for as long as we have existed people have wanted some semblance of purpose, of destiny. thats not something they need proven, its just what can push people to do greater things than they normally would, good or bad, but still greater under the impression that there is a plan behind everything.

In all honesty i imagine religions like christianity werent started as some way to con people into devotion and money but as some sort of allergory about being a part of something to join people together. Look at the christian god itself. They are told about an entity which isnt the last of its kind, its just the only one of its kind that will ever be. and because its some all knowing omniscient creature it knows that the concept of "more than one" can exist but will always be alone so what does it do? the same thing anyone with an eternity of free time and godly powers would do. it starts making things 'in its own image' to fill the void as it were. The basic story of genesis is all about wanting more, to surround yourself with others like you, to basically just not be alone. cant find people like you? then find the next best thing. Theres no proof to this story they are told, they just take on blind faith that theres things out there just as lonely as they will ever be and it doesnt want either of them to be alone anymore.

I imagine like most religions it gets added onto as time progress' but the basics of any religion remain the same "you are part of something bigger, death isn't the end, you are special" and some people need to be told that more than have proof of that, take away the business of modern religion and thats it, helping a person find what they need to feel they have a place in the world.

Me im happy with knowing im a damn bacteria on the surface of a rock, maybe its something to do with being an artist y'know? i can make stuff that will outlive me, that can influence others and be part of a cycle of creative works that will outlive all of us. Guess everyone has something but i dnt need religion for the same reason im not a vegetarian. Im the result of billions of years of biological evolution, i know what i can do, i know my limits and im happy with what i am and dont need to change to suit some idea i dont believe in myself.

[EvilNed]

More accurate to say all Religions are human-perpetuated,

Yes, that too.

[Terran]

Everyone needs to settle down with turning this into a Religion discussion and just briefly look at this rationally.

I assume we can all agree that it is extremely irritating when we see athletes, politicians, and various other celebrities receiving special treatment when it comes to the law.

How many times have we seen these people commit crimes and get off with a slap on the wrist or dodge the charges altogether, when if the same allegations or charges were brought against us we would undeniably serve time in federal prison.


Lets avoid all this silly finger pointing and faith/anti-faith bickering. Stick to the actual issue at hand.

To try and keep Catholic religion out of this lets use the name that this man was born with instead of "The Pope" and address the actual allegations.

Joseph Alois Ratzinger.

The Question is did Joseph Alois Ratzinger break the law when he held the title of Archbishop of Munich?
These current allegations refer to events that occurred between the 1970s through the late 1980s.

Thus far there are just a few events in question.

Part 1) Father Peter Hullermann from the Diocese of Essen was accused of abusing several boys in the 1970s and 1980s. After being accused of molesting several boys he was removed from his parish assignment. He was then transferred to Munich for psychiatric treatment and this was formally approved by the Archbishop of Munich Cardinal Ratzinger.

To summarize Part 1:
Facts) Joseph Alois Ratzinger was notified that a priest was being accused of molesting multiple victims.
Action Taken) Joseph Alois Ratzinger formally(signed letter) approved this priest's transfer for psychiatric treatment.

Brief Commentary: Public accusations, general complaints, and letters from other priests are not protected by the Seal of the Confessional.



Part 1B:
Hullermann was eventually allowed to resume his pastoral duties in the archdiocese of Munich (Under Ratzinger), and several years later, he was criminally convicted of sexually abusing other children in a different parish



Part 2: This period is particular unsettling. Not just for where Ratzinger is implemented but the general actions of Vatican officials.

In the 1980s there was a sexual abuse case in the United States regarding Stephen Kiesle.

Seems a timeline would best illustrate this situation.

Stephen Kiesle Timeline

August 1978 (Just 6 years after being ordained): Kiesle is arrested and pleads no contest to lewd conduct, a misdemeanor, for tying up and molesting two boys. Sentenced to three years probation, record is later expunged.

1978-1981: Kiesle takes extended leave of absence, attends counseling and reports regularly to probation officer.

1981: An Oakland Bishop John Cummins sends Kiesle's file to the Vatican supporting a measure to remove Kiesle's right to exercise the functions of the ordained ministry.
The Vatican responds by requesting additional information.
Brief Comment: So Kiesle is still a priest at this time.

1982: Cummins writes directly to Ratzinger providing additional information and warning of possible scandal if Kiesle is not defrocked.
Later that same year the Oakland diocese writes Ratzinger asking for updates

1983: Cummins visits Rome directly, and discusses Kiesle case with Vatican officials in person.
Later that year Vatican official writes Oakland to say Kiesle's file can't be found and they should resubmit materials.

1984: Cummins writes a Vatican official to inquire about status of Kiesle file. AGAIN

1985: Kiesle volunteers as a youth minister at St. Joseph's Church in Pinole.

1985: Cummins writes Ratzinger asking about status of Kiesle case. AGAIN
Later that year Ratzinger finally writes to Cummins about Kiesle case. In the letter Ratzinger recommends "due caution" and consideration for "good of the universal Church".

December 1985: A memo from diocese officials discusses writing to Ratzinger again to stress the risk of scandal if Kiesle's case is delayed.

1987 Kiesle is finally defrocked.

2002: Kiesle is arrested and charged with 13 counts of child molestation; all but two are thrown out after U.S. Supreme Court ruling invalidates a California law extending statute of limitations.





So I am hoping many people read through this so now we can return to the question that several people seem to have echoed in some fashion or another.

What crime has the current Pope(Joseph Alois Ratzinger) committed?

If this was any common peasant citizen they could be charged with numerous crimes.


The following charges definitely seem applicable to Ratzinger's actions (as well as other Vatican officials)
1: GROSS NEGLIGENCE: Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.

2:Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

3:Willful and Wanton conduct: Which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury

4:Misprision: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


To avoid making this post unreasonably long Ill here on crimes Ill stop here since those are pretty clear cut.



So I guess the issue then becomes if a given person from another country breaks the law of another country effecting it's citizens is it alright to arrest that person if they return to the country in question.

If there's a legal precedent for proceeding with litigation how can federal prosecutors ignore their LEGAL DUTY to enforce the laws of their given country.

[Publius]

The following charges definitely seem applicable to Ratzinger's actions (as well as other Vatican officials)
1: GROSS NEGLIGENCE: Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.

2:Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

3:Willful and Wanton conduct: Which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury

4:Misprision: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


To some extent I think you are confusing criminal law and tort law. Negligence, gross negligence, and willful and wanton conduct are not offenses in themselves but levels of culpability. At least the first two are mostly relevant to elements of tort claims.

Misprision of felony is an English common law crime that still exists in U.S. federal law but has been abolished in most common law countries. Even in the U.S., it is construed quite narrowly (for constitutional reasons) and usually requires active concealment and not just knowledge without reporting. It's unclear to me how applicable the concept is here, even imagining all relevant events occurred in the U.S. Kiesle WAS prosecuted and convicted, and the correspondence in question (as far as I can tell) deals with whether he should be laicized (at his own request) after the conviction. Is there any evidence that evidence of additional, post-conviction, credible complaints were brought to Ratzinger? I know Hullerman was convicted at some point too, but am less familiar with that case.

[Terran]

To some extent I think you are confusing criminal law and tort law. Negligence, gross negligence, and willful and wanton conduct are not offenses in themselves but levels of culpability. At least the first two are mostly relevant to elements of tort claims. Misprision of felony is an English common law crime that still exists in U.S. federal law but has been abolished in most common law countries. Even in the U.S., it is construed quite narrowly (for constitutional reasons) and usually requires active concealment and not just knowledge without reporting.


I must admit, that written Law, and its practical Enforcement appears to me to be, by design, arbitrary to those with the resources to practice and influence it...
So it both irritates and confuses me.... As a result when I got to that portion of my post I did not give it my full attention....

Do you have legal experience, education, or just exposed to it regularly?
Would be good to know for future reference because it is definitely not my strong point.

What Im gathering from your response is that: Negligence, gross negligence, and willful and wanton conduct by themselves are only subject to damages/compensation. It is in the light of a specific crime where Negligence, gross negligence, and willful and wanton conduct are used to essentially assess the level guilt for a given crime.

So I did a little bit of looking more into crimes.

At least as it stands now these seem to be the crimes in question.
(At least the ones I could think of at the moment)

Child Abuse
a. Neglect
b. Physical abuse
c. Child sexual abuse
d. Psychological/emotional abuse


B: Child Sexual Assault crimes
a. sexual assault
b. sexual molestation
c. sexual exploitation
d. sexual grooming


What seems to reason that if Negligence, gross negligence, and willful and wanton conduct can be applied to these types of crimes it would appear that there would be a legitimate case against Ratzinger and other Vatican officials.

I do not know if these charges already have a specific name, but in terms of how this is laid out here they would read like this.

Criminally Negligent Child Abuse (including any of the variations)
Criminally Negligent Child Sexual Assault (including any of the variations)

To address the potential responses that could misunderstand the wording of such a hypothetical charge I want to add the following:

This means that Ratzinger and other Vatican Officials of that time did not personally abuse the children but their demonstrated mental state of disregarding known or obvious risks to human life and safety exhibits criminal negligence.

I hate using metaphors like news anchors do to illuminate what should be straightforward facts, because the metaphors can often misrepresent the reality of the situation.
With that caveat though consider the following.

Negligent Homicide/Manslaughter is a crime that many people have been convicted of.
The classic scenario demonstrating a Negligent Homicide charge is if the defendant left a loaded firearm within reach of a small child.

Therefore a scenario demonstrating a Negligent Child Abuse/SexualAssault charge would be if the defendant left an Abuser/pedophile within reach of a small child.


Criminal negligence refers to a mental state of disregarding known or obvious risks to human life and safety.

Now If this is a legitimate charge I think it is very clear that both Ratzinger and other Vatican Officials of that time would be guilty of it. However it is important to recognize that in terms of Ratzinger's /Vatican's involvement with the Peter Hullerman and Stephen Kiesle situation, that these crimes have now all past the statute of limitations.

A hypothetical example I think is needed to what Ratzinger did:

A grade-school superintendent finds out two of his teachers are raping/molesting several children. The superintendent assigns psychiatric treatment for one and the other teacher takes a leave of absence.
Within a few years the superintendent reassigns these teachers to continue teaching grade-school, shortly afterwords these teachers begin to receive additional accusations of rape/molestation.
Other teachers even begin to demand the removal of these two pedophile teachers, but despite the numerous requests the superintendent keeps this pedophile teachers assigned to teaching grade-school.
It is not until several more years pass and the mounting concern of public and legal out-cry does the superintendent finally take action to fire these pedophile teachers.
If this sort of behavior isnt criminal it very well should be.