Do other Christians feel the Pope is claiming a special immunity unfairly denied to other religious faiths - including other Christian denoms?

'...In legal actions against Catholic archdioceses in the US it has been alleged that the same conduct reflected Vatican policy as approved by Cardinal Ratzinger (as the pope then was) as late as November 2002. Sexual assaults were regarded as sins that were subject to church tribunals, and guilty priests were sent on a "pious pilgrimage" while oaths of confidentiality were extracted from their victims.

In the US, 11,750 allegations of child sex abuse have so far featured in actions settled by archdioceses – in Los Angeles for $660m and in Boston for $100m. But some dioceses have gone into bankruptcy and some claimants want higher level accountability – two reasons to sue the pope in person. In 2005 a test case in Texas failed because the Vatican sought and obtained the intercession of President Bush, who agreed to claim sovereign (ie head of state) immunity on the pope's behalf. Bush lawyer John B Bellinger III certified that Pope Benedict the XVI was immune from suit "as the head of a foreign state".

....This claim could be challenged successfully in the UK and in the European Court of Human Rights. But in any event, head of state immunity provides no protection for the pope in the international criminal court...If acts of sexual abuse by priests are not isolated or sporadic, but part of a wide practice both known to and unpunished by their de facto authority then they fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC – if that practice continued after July 2002, when the court was established....

...The Holy See may deserve respect for offering the prospect of redemption to sinners, but it must be clear that in law the pope does so as a spiritual adviser, and not as an immune sovereign.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/liberty...

Personally, I think it's high time his status is removed.  There is no reason on Earth why he has to have head of state status.  No other religious leader gets that.  City-states are so ... so ... BC.  The pope lives in Italy.  The end.

Would people be in favor of bring the Pope before the International Criminal Court to face charges of systematic sexual abuse of children in many countries?

Should the institution that protected them and covered for them and allowed them the religious cover to abuse children again and again be held criminally responsible?

Apr 5, 2010 -- 10:22AM, Kwinters wrote:

Would people be in favor of bring the Pope before the International Criminal Court to face charges of systematic sexual abuse of children in many countries?

Should the institution that protected them and covered for them and allowed them the religious cover to abuse children again and again be held criminally responsible?

I was listening to WGN's "Legally Speaking" last night, and although not experts in international criminal law, they discussed that it would be hard to make a charge of systemic abuse stick against him - that the lack of disclosure (when relocating a known/suspect abusive priest) is not quite enough to prove malicious intent, that he knew abuse would continue (ie:  he could claim the priests were repentant), etc.

Sure, I'd like him to take his licks for what he did, but considering that he would be difficult to convict, the media crucifixion fits the bill.  That is, until something else comes up.

Also, it's not just the head-of-state issue, it's the fact that there is a state at all.  The Vatican has provided sanctuary for criminals before (note:  I know this is not the norm), and I don't think the ICC has the power to 'arrest' him unless he leaves his state. 

Apr 5, 2010 -- 7:37AM, Kwinters wrote:

Do other Christians feel the Pope is claiming a special immunity unfairly denied to other religious faiths - including other Christian denoms?

 

'...In legal actions against Catholic archdioceses in the US it has been alleged that the same conduct reflected Vatican policy as approved by Cardinal Ratzinger (as the pope then was) as late as November 2002. Sexual assaults were regarded as sins that were subject to church tribunals, and guilty priests were sent on a "pious pilgrimage" while oaths of confidentiality were extracted from their victims.

In the US, 11,750 allegations of child sex abuse have so far featured in actions settled by archdioceses – in Los Angeles for $660m and in Boston for $100m. But some dioceses have gone into bankruptcy and some claimants want higher level accountability – two reasons to sue the pope in person. In 2005 a test case in Texas failed because the Vatican sought and obtained the intercession of President Bush, who agreed to claim sovereign (ie head of state) immunity on the pope's behalf. Bush lawyer John B Bellinger III certified that Pope Benedict the XVI was immune from suit "as the head of a foreign state".

....This claim could be challenged successfully in the UK and in the European Court of Human Rights. But in any event, head of state immunity provides no protection for the pope in the international criminal court...If acts of sexual abuse by priests are not isolated or sporadic, but part of a wide practice both known to and unpunished by their de facto authority then they fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC – if that practice continued after July 2002, when the court was established....

...The Holy See may deserve respect for offering the prospect of redemption to sinners, but it must be clear that in law the pope does so as a spiritual adviser, and not as an immune sovereign.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/liberty...

The pope should answer to the ICC.  The fact that he claims that he's being unfairly buttonholed is disturbing.  He should WANT to speak out, if he's not guilty!  But he knows he IS!