Should the Pope be arrested?

[Jude]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100412/wl_uk_afp/britainvaticanpopereligionchildabuse_20100412175429

This is certainly a fascinating issue.  I definitely think he should be arrested and tried--why should he be above the law?  If he can be convicted, then he deserves to do jailtime the same as the rest of us.

I don't think that the Vatican should be considered a separate government despite what they like to claim.  That would certainly put an entirely different spin on Catholic Churches.  They're not embassies, colonies, or enclaves, are they?  Priests certainly don't have diplomatic immunity.  It seems like the Vatican wants the rights of being a separate entity without the responsibilities.

[Paladin]

Unfortunatly Rome IS its own separate entity.

[RubySlippers]

The UN granted the Vatican permanent observer state status in the UN Charter so is considered a nation, in fact if I recall they have ambassadors just not many one in the UN for sure. But head of states can be arrested the International Criminal Court could charge him and have him brought to trial.

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't think it will fly. This is just another grandstanding stunt. (Of course I think some folks need to bring up the Vactican's role in covering things up..but this isnt' the way.)

[Sabby]

Should he? Yes.

Will he? No.

I honestly wish they would arrest him. Even if he's totally ignorant of the child abuse, thats a crime in itself.

[GeekFury]

To be sort of devil advocate, it's not the current pope who covered it up it was John Paul the Second, or did he cover it up before he became pope? I'm not sure on those details, but maybe instead, hold the Vatican responsible as a whole and put the pope on trail as their figure head? I'm not sure, doubt anything will come of it but I do back the fact someone needs to be held to account, it was shocking that they got away with it for so long.

[Avi]

The cover-up has probably been going on since before John Paul II honestly.  For all the good things that he did as Pope, especially in making youth excited about being the next generation of Christians, he seems to have turned a blind eye to what had been brewing for a while. 

Should Benedict be arrested?  At least brought to answer questions before the legislatures of the affected countries.  Will he be made to do anything?  Probably not, the Vatican does a fantastic job of insulating the Papacy from political backlash.

[Silk]

We should all be held accountable for our actions, diverting the course of justice is a crime and should be treated as such.

[Callie Del Noire]

I figure if any European government has grounds to arrest the Pope it would be the Republic of Ireland. (Of course if you were going to arrest folks for interferring with the investigation of cases of abuse in the Republic, 3/4s of the last 30 years worth of elected officers would be behind bars...)

I do not think this is a prudent move given we (and by 'we' I mean any country looking into these allegations) haven't been able to fully punish the parts of the church WITHIN the country. We got plenty of folks to nail here.

[HairyHeretic]

Before he became pope, he was the head of the inquisition (or whatever name they're calling it these days). Guess what one of their duties is? Yup, incidents of priests abusing. There have been published accounts of his office being contacted concerning a priest in the States who had abused deaf children at a school. The reply stressed the importance of the good name of the church, and the decision was made to move the priest, rather than remove him.

Go check a few news stories. It's a fair bet that he knew at least some of what was going on.

But now apparently its the gays that are to blame for it, according to cardinal whoever, on tour in Chile. I swear, these days they're only opening their mouths to exchange feet.

[GeekFury]

I did not know he covered it up, I knew he was part of the Inquisitions modern office, but no idea that was part of his duties, though if they don't want to hold the priests that done it to blame then yeah he should get the blame for covering it up as isn't that tantamount to perversion of the course of justice? Or at least I'm sure it would be here in the UK.

[HairyHeretic]

I don't think his name is on any papers, but if he was head of the organisation (and reputed to be very much a micromanager) I suspect he knew all about it. I'd say he has official deniability, at least in the legal sense though.

[National Acrobat]

Per the Lateran Treaty of 1929, the Vatican is an independent Nation State, compromising all of 110 acres. The treaty was recognized worldwide when it was signed by the Holy See and the Italian Government.

According to the Treaty, several prominent properties outside of the Vatican have extraterritorial status which is the the equivalent to the status of Embassies.

So, arresting the Pope would be like trying to arrest a Head of State of a Foreign Nation.

Do I think that some sort of justice needs to be meted out, of course.

However, the Vatican is an independent nation, and as such, is treated as such.

[Jude]

The Holy See has been recognized, both in state practice and in the writing of modern legal scholars, as a subject of public international law, with rights and duties analogous to those of States. Although the Holy See, as distinct from the Vatican City State, does not fulfil the long-established criteria in international law of statehood; having a permanent population, a defined territory, a stable government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states, its possession of full legal personality in international law is proved by the fact that it maintains diplomatic relations with 177 states, that it is a member-state  in various intergovernmental international organizations, and that it is: "respected by the international community of sovereign States and treated as a subject of international law having the capacity to engage in diplomatic relations and to enter into binding agreements with one, several, or many states under international law that are largely geared to establish and preserving peace in the world."

So... it's not quite that clear.

Also, when he assisted in the coverups he was not Pope, so even if you agree that he has diplomatic immunity for anything he does now, he didn't have it then.

[GeekFury]

So... it's not quite that clear.

Also, when he assisted in the coverups he was not Pope, so even if you agree that he has diplomatic immunity for anything he does now, he didn't have it then.

True but can he be arrested for those crime now he is pope? Or can they arrest him saying 'At the time you were a cardinal'? ( He was a cardinal right? Or whats he a bishop? )

[ReijiTabibito]

If they're going to arrest him, then it's grandstanding unless they can make the charges stick.  The charge in this case is 'crimes against humanity'.  This is the same sort of crime that the Nazi high officials were charged with during the Nuremberg trials.  This is a charge that is associated with the highest form of evil known to history.  While what has happened is reprehensible...it's not a crime against humanity.  According to the ICC, who would be trying the case, the definition of crimes against humanity is:

"Particularly odious offences that constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape and political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."


So, unless the Pope/Vatican has been telling people to go ahead and molest children, it's not a crime against humanity.  They have to be systematic, like what the Nazis did. 

[Brandon]

I am a Roman Catholic and I think he should be held responsible for his actions, the key word being his. If he had some hand in covering up the incidents then absolutely he should be held accountable and judged by our laws (since the majority of the reported crimes happened in our country). However, he should not be judged for cover ups made by previous popes. The issue in my mind is, can they prove that he took part in any cover ups? If there isnt hard evidence then sorry but that's resonable doubt in my mind

Then theres the other question, how many of these events really happened? Im sure some of them did but Im also sure that some of them didnt. Some people are motivated purely by greed and have made false accusations in an attempt to get money, Ive seen that happen first hand when a priest was moved elsewhere and then about 2 months afterwards someone came forward claiming that he had been molested by the man. Then the social workers came in, trying to convince every person in the youth group that they had been molested by him. I can say with certainty that I never had an inappropriate moment with the Father and that the accuser was making it all up. This is why these big cases which want a ton of money strike me as greedy. If it was a small amount to cover psychiatric fee's and such, I could understand that but when I see huge numbers I tend to think theyre greedy assholes trying to make a fast million bucks

As a society, American society that is, we tend to immediatly favor the "victum" and dismiss evidence to the contrary. When serving on a jury many people forget what resonable doubt means and that any doubt in their mind means they should vote not guilty. They dont question the evidence, the motives, or the opportunity. They only take one look at the person and decide there and then whether they are guilty or not which is the wrong way to serve on a jury IMO

Personally, I have never understood why the Vatican doesnt aggressively go after the molesting priests themselves. I think that would make them look better in the eyes of people

[Inkidu]

Unfortunatly Rome IS its own separate entity.

Vatican City is it's own separate entity as well. The world's smallest sovereign nation.

[Oniya]

"Particularly odious offences that constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape and political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."

Actually, it looks like if it was 'widespread', they might have a leg to stand on - since the lack of action mentioned by Brandon could be spun as a form of toleration.  It's not a 'beyond reasonable doubt' sort of thing, but it might get past a grand jury.

(Of course, I've also heard it's possible to indict a ham sandwich.)

[Jude]

If an official investigation is begun, they may find evidence which incriminates him (or exonerates).  The point is, refusing to do that investigation because of his status is wrong.  If he committed a crime, he should face the same penalty as anyone else.

More than likely, the Holy See will hide as much as they can if such an investigation occurs, which will at least show the public how secretive they are (thus have something to hide).

You could call it grandstanding, but I think even if nothing comes of it, it helps to expose the Vatican as (I think they seem to be) a self-interested entity motivated by maintaining their power base over doing what's right.

[ReijiTabibito]

See, that's one of the problems I've got with practicing law now...part of it is a 'how do we spin the truth' game.  Dawkins (I identify him because he's probably the name that most people know) and his allies say that because the Church isn't doing everything in its power to stop priests from molesting children, they're tolerating the abuse of said children. 

But how do you prove that?  One of the things that one of my lawyer friends has said is that unless you put them on the stand, it's impossible to prove someone's state of mind at a given time.  And even then, it's not always a given.  And no defense lawyer would be stupid enough to put the man accused of the crime on the stand.

And to supplement your comment, Oniya, it's also possible to indict flies, dead bodies, and God.  Yes, there was a man who sued God.


And Jude, about the power base over doing what's right?  Every government is like that.  You can be a dictatorship or a democracy, and it won't matter.

[Brandon]

Another thought comes to mind, the fact that they have an office to investigate these incidents is evidence in and of itself that they dont tolerate preists molesting children. They might just be trying to handle it quietly. Its the exact opposite of how I would handle investigations but it does show that theyre doing something. I suppose its up to opinion of whether or not that's doing enough

Lets take the incident that someone mentioned when a priest was reported to the office and they told them to keep the incident quiet to preserve the good name of the church. What if they investigated it and found nothing to support the accusation? Obviously it would be wrong to punish a man without evidence, I think we can all agree on that. However an acusation was still made, if they kept him there it probably would have caused more unrest in the community. In that case it was likely better to move him to another community and keep the incident quiet. Seriously, how many parents would allow their children to be around a man who had been accused of molesting children but never convicted?

[Avi]

Predator priests were simply sent elsewhere

The wheels are coming off the Catholic Church in terms of public opinion... for an organization that is supposed to be Christian and stand up for the weakest in society, they sure seemed to do a good job of protecting their own instead.

[Jude]

Another thought comes to mind, the fact that they have an office to investigate these incidents is evidence in and of itself that they dont tolerate preists molesting children. They might just be trying to handle it quietly. Its the exact opposite of how I would handle investigations but it does show that theyre doing something. I suppose its up to opinion of whether or not that's doing enough

It's not up to the church to handle such problems though.  All they should do is report pedo-priests to the local authorities and let them handle it.  What gives them the right to police the members of their institution when they've broken local law without reporting it?  I'm pretty sure that's a crime.  You don't get to determine the punishments that your members (even your citizens) make on foreign soil, they're subject to the law of the land, and if they're willfully subverting the execution of that law, then they're basically committing a crime as an institution against our entire government and country.  We've gone to war for less.

Lets take the incident that someone mentioned when a priest was reported to the office and they told them to keep the incident quiet to preserve the good name of the church. What if they investigated it and found nothing to support the accusation? Obviously it would be wrong to punish a man without evidence, I think we can all agree on that. However an acusation was still made, if they kept him there it probably would have caused more unrest in the community. In that case it was likely better to move him to another community and keep the incident quiet. Seriously, how many parents would allow their children to be around a man who had been accused of molesting children but never convicted?

They've repeatedly shown, in my opinion, that they only have an interest in protecting themselves from scandal.  Moving a sex offender to a different location without any other punishment other than "private penance" is not going to stop the molestation, but it will stop the victims from having their day in court.

No one's saying "kill or imprison the Pope."  Throwing that out there was either a non-sequitur or a strawman, I'm not sure which.

[HockeyGod]

I saw an interesting article on the Huffington Post about the evolution of child sex abuse in the Catholic Church. Initially it was considered a moral individual sin that could be overcome with prayer. It then evolved into a mental illness that should be treated professionally. It is not being seen as a crime.

I'm in NO way condoning anything that was done, but it can help putting it into context. We shape our reactions to social problems based on how we define them (moral, mental illness, criminal).

The con to the article I would bring up would be they are not mutually exclusive.

[Oniya]

Aren't most crimes also sins?  Bearing false witness, stealing, killing...

[Sabby]

Aren't most sins fixed by kneeling and talking to a man behind a dark screen?

[ReijiTabibito]

Only if you're Catholic.

If you're Jewish, most sins are fixed by kneeling and sacrificing some sort of animal.

If you're Buddhist, most sins are fixed by kneeling and being reincarnated.

If you're Muslim,  most sins are fixed by kneeling and praying to the east five times a day.

And if you're Protestant, most sins are fixed by kneeling and praying to a man you don't even see.

[Brandon]

It's not up to the church to handle such problems though.  All they should do is report pedo-priests to the local authorities and let them handle it.  What gives them the right to police the members of their institution when they've broken local law without reporting it?  I'm pretty sure that's a crime.  You don't get to determine the punishments that your members (even your citizens) make on foreign soil, they're subject to the law of the land, and if they're willfully subverting the execution of that law, then they're basically committing a crime as an institution against our entire government and country.  We've gone to war for less.They've repeatedly shown, in my opinion, that they only have an interest in protecting themselves from scandal.  Moving a sex offender to a different location without any other punishment other than "private penance" is not going to stop the molestation, but it will stop the victims from having their day in court.

The vatican is by law a nation so by every right they do have the authority to create an internal group to handle such accusations. Its very similar to the police in every country around the world and even the police have police (internal affairs in the US) in some places. I fully agree that priests that are convicted, plead guilty, or no contest to these crimes should pay their debt to society. Sending them to another part of the world after a conviction and before punishment is wrong IMO but if a priest pays his debt to society then he should have the opportunity to continue being a priest (although I would be fine with supervision for crimes like child molestation). To err is to be human after all and while still men of faith they are human and thus make mistakes.

However priests that are not convicted or settle outside of court shouldnt be held to that same standard because the victim 1) couldnt prove it happened or 2) decided that money was more important then justice. A priest that is only accused (and never convicted) should never be punished but that wont happen because most Americans demonize anyone accused of sexual misconduct whether convicted or not. Its just how our society is

Aren't most sins fixed by kneeling and talking to a man behind a dark screen?

Thats part of it Sabby but theres also always some kind of penance. As I said once before in another thread, in our faith intent means something. If you arent truly sorry for something you wont be forgiven. How can a human be 100% sure that a confession is sincere or not though? I dont have an answer to that question so the confession has to be taken at face value as truth

[Illun]

I'm not exactly a fan of the Catholic church, but this is just a sad group of atheists who saw an opportunity to grab headlines.

I saw an interesting article on the Huffington Post about the evolution of child sex abuse in the Catholic Church. Initially it was considered a moral individual sin that could be overcome with prayer. It then evolved into a mental illness that should be treated professionally. It is not being seen as a crime.

And this is very critical in the hypothetical prosecution of this case. A foreign government generally will get away with not endorsing the laws of other nations where they differ. While most intelligent people see sex abuse at any age, particularly involving children, as a horrible crime, but we're applying our laws and morals to another group of people.

If this were anything other than an anti-faith publicity stunt, it would be seeking extradition and trial of the individual priests with evidence to back up the demand for extradition. THAT is the proper legal course of action, not arresting a head of state on trumped up charges before any real attempt has been made toward due course.

The "widespread" also doesn't hold up either. While you can point to numerous cases of accusations, there were 406,411 Catholic priests in 2005, not counting other titles that have been accused. The percentage is comparable to any other group. This isn't a "Catholic" problem, it's a worldwide problem in all populations. It's easy to point fingers at the Catholic church because we expect their leadership to be somehow pure and untainted by sin. At that, only 6% of those accused in the US (where most of the accusations are sourced) have been convicted, yet the full count of accusations (even those disproven) is touted by pundits and idiots like the ones behind this stunt. When the rates are the same or lower than in the general population, it's not a "crime against humanity", it's a series of individual crimes that should be addressed individually.

Did they fubar the situation? Yes. But that doesn't make a publicity stunt like this meaningful or acceptable.

No one's saying "kill or imprison the Pope."  Throwing that out there was either a non-sequitur or a strawman, I'm not sure which.

Actually, look at what "crimes against humanity" carries as punishment. If they were serious about this campaign, "kill or imprison the Pope" is exactly what they would be seeking. I have trouble believing anyone sees this as more than a publicity stunt, though.

[Jude]

The vatican is by law a nation so by every right they do have the authority to create an internal group to handle such accusations. Its very similar to the police in every country around the world and even the police have police (internal affairs in the US) in some places.

No, it's really not at all similar for several reasons.

1)  Catholic Priests are not citizens of this Vatican Country, but the Nation in which they live.
2)  Police, internal affairs, and even the U.S. military (outside of wartime) only operate inside territories that they have permission to do so in.  No one gave the Vatican's permission to bypass local law.
3)  People are accountable for the crimes they commit where they commit them regardless of the location of the crime.  You can't kill someone in London and then say "I'm a U.S. Citizen so the U.S. can decide my punishment."  There are circumstances where such a thing occurs (I believe, I'm no legal expert) but I'm pretty sure it's with the permission of the country that is losing the right to prosecute them.  We gave the Vatican no such permission to determine the punishments of Catholic Priests who are U.S. citizens.  If this was any other "Nation" defending and covering up their citizen's egregious, illegal actions, we'd be threatening them in some fashion and bringing it up before the U.N.  If they're going to be recognized as a separate entity they should be treated like one.

I fully agree that priests that are convicted, plead guilty, or no contest to these crimes should pay their debt to society. Sending them to another part of the world after a conviction and before punishment is wrong IMO but if a priest pays his debt to society then he should have the opportunity to continue being a priest (although I would be fine with supervision for crimes like child molestation). To err is to be human after all and while still men of faith they are human and thus make mistakes.

I agree, so long as they're published as sex offenders and follow the same rules as all other sexual offenders, but how are we going to punish them when the Church maintains its own internal code of silence and attempts to cover up the crimes for the sake of their own influence?  That's precisely the problem.  Not only are they not punished for what they do, but the information that there's a potential threat is kept from the public.  How would you feel if your child was hanging out with a pedo-priest who the Vatican KNEW was a pedophile?  What if such a child was molested by this priest and it was entirely preventable?

This is what has happened.  Look up the School for the Deaf incidents.

However priests that are not convicted or settle outside of court shouldnt be held to that same standard because the victim 1) couldnt prove it happened or 2) decided that money was more important then justice. A priest that is only accused (and never convicted) should never be punished but that wont happen because most Americans demonize anyone accused of sexual misconduct whether convicted or not. Its just how our society is

What're you basing this off of?  I saw you make similar claims earlier and you were mentioning the jury being likely to convict.  Is this your opinion based on personal observation or do you have statistics to back this up?  Are you a legal scholar who has studied such incidents, or is this extrapolation based on a limited scope of the situation?

And regardless of any of that, there have been examples of priests confessing that they did it and getting off without any real punishment thanks to the Vatican decrees of silence.  Let me repeat that:  Vatican policy knowingly assisted a heinous, dangerous criminal in covering up his actions.  How can you possibly defend that?

Thats part of it Sabby but theres also always some kind of penance. As I said once before in another thread, in our faith intent means something. If you arent truly sorry for something you wont be forgiven. How can a human be 100% sure that a confession is sincere or not though? I dont have an answer to that question so the confession has to be taken at face value as truth

"I'm sorry" is not enough in America.  We have laws that dictate what the acceptable penance for your crime of child molestation is.  Apparently they're in conflict with the Catholic Church's own standards on the matter, and that's fine.  If they want to give pedophiles an easy time, their policy should be made known to the public.  And doing that still wouldn't give them the right to their own justice.

When you come to our country you agree to abide by our laws, and if you want to be in good relations with us, then you absolutely must respect our sovereignty; this is not doing that.  This is the Vatican abusing its dual position as a secular and religious institution, the influence they have throughout the world, and worst of all they're probably going to get away with it.

I'm not even sure how a government like our own can possibly recognize a religious conclave as a state-entity when Separation of Church and State is a fundamental premise of our society.  If there was even concrete evidence that they did something terribly wrong that was unquestionably and universally accepted as a prosecutable offense, could we even do it due to that clause?

A church is not a state.  It doesn't matter that they've been recognized as such by entities throughout the world, the very concept of the Vatican as a nation is ridiculous.  It doesn't fit the true definition; they have no citizens and they have very limited territorial holdings.

Say you choose to grant them statehood for the sake of argument, then what does it make the Pope?  The head of a morally absolutist theocratic-dictatorship who claims infallibility, holds sway over citizens of nearly every nation across the world, disrespects other nation's sovereignty, dictates to people how they are supposed to act if they are going to be saved from an eternity of suffering; maybe our next stop on the good ole USA world-liberation tour should be Vatican City.

Actually, look at what "crimes against humanity" carries as punishment. If they were serious about this campaign, "kill or imprison the Pope" is exactly what they would be seeking. I have trouble believing anyone sees this as more than a publicity stunt, though.

There's a difference between seeking a trial and seeking that particular punishment.  In order for that punishment to be carried out in a trial, there's the requirement of examination of the evidence and unbiased deliberation.  Saying "I want that person dead" is not the same as saying "I want that person to be arrested, the evidence to be accounted for, and the truth to come out, and if it comes out that they are guilty of the crime they have been accused of, I want to see them punished for it."

[Paladin]

Should he? Yes.

Will he? No.

I honestly wish they would arrest him. Even if he's totally ignorant of the child abuse, thats a crime in itself.

No its not. Not knowing about something is not a crime in itself man if you are not participating in it.

[Jude]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100415/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_predator_priests

More disturbing remarks.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm sorry..the Catholic church has repeatedly and extensively hidden, covered up or avoided responsibity for decades. I mean just look at the extensive and systematic abuse in Ireland for DECADES, there was rampant and widespread abuse in the church run schools, hostels, orphanages and such.  (from the 30s to 90s) and what came of it?

Next to nothing. The abuser's identities were hidden and the victims were denied the right to sue (The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, started in 2002). The Church has been very reluctant to do anything to aid prosecution or change the system.

That being said, harrassing the Pope won't do anything to fix this. Political pressure from the world leaders and governments is needed. Of course  there is nothing that anyone has done to date to put the pressure to force change in the way the church handles allegations. Problem is not at the Pontiff's level but at a lower level where the 'shuffling' of priests and stonewalling authorities is done.

Getting the Pope (and his advisors) to do something will take more than empty actions like this.

Though for the life of me I can't imagine WHAT type of action would be able to be used to pressure the Vatican to act.

[Brandon]

No, it's really not at all similar for several reasons.

1)  Catholic Priests are not citizens of this Vatican Country, but the Nation in which they live.
2)  Police, internal affairs, and even the U.S. military (outside of wartime) only operate inside territories that they have permission to do so in.  No one gave the Vatican's permission to bypass local law.
3)  People are accountable for the crimes they commit where they commit them regardless of the location of the crime.  You can't kill someone in London and then say "I'm a U.S. Citizen so the U.S. can decide my punishment."  There are circumstances where such a thing occurs (I believe, I'm no legal expert) but I'm pretty sure it's with the permission of the country that is losing the right to prosecute them.  We gave the Vatican no such permission to determine the punishments of Catholic Priests who are U.S. citizens.  If this was any other "Nation" defending and covering up their citizen's egregious, illegal actions, we'd be threatening them in some fashion and bringing it up before the U.N.  If they're going to be recognized as a separate entity they should be treated like one.I agree, so long as they're published as sex offenders and follow the same rules as all other sexual offenders, but how are we going to punish them when the Church maintains its own internal code of silence and attempts to cover up the crimes for the sake of their own influence?  That's precisely the problem.  Not only are they not punished for what they do, but the information that there's a potential threat is kept from the public.  How would you feel if your child was hanging out with a pedo-priest who the Vatican KNEW was a pedophile?  What if such a child was molested by this priest and it was entirely preventable?

This is what has happened.  Look up the School for the Deaf incidents.What're you basing this off of?  I saw you make similar claims earlier and you were mentioning the jury being likely to convict.  Is this your opinion based on personal observation or do you have statistics to back this up?  Are you a legal scholar who has studied such incidents, or is this extrapolation based on a limited scope of the situation?

And regardless of any of that, there have been examples of priests confessing that they did it and getting off without any real punishment thanks to the Vatican decrees of silence.  Let me repeat that:  Vatican policy knowingly assisted a heinous, dangerous criminal in covering up his actions.  How can you possibly defend that?"I'm sorry" is not enough in America.  We have laws that dictate what the acceptable penance for your crime of child molestation is.  Apparently they're in conflict with the Catholic Church's own standards on the matter, and that's fine.  If they want to give pedophiles an easy time, their policy should be made known to the public.  And doing that still wouldn't give them the right to their own justice.

When you come to our country you agree to abide by our laws, and if you want to be in good relations with us, then you absolutely must respect our sovereignty; this is not doing that.  This is the Vatican abusing its dual position as a secular and religious institution, the influence they have throughout the world, and worst of all they're probably going to get away with it.

I'm not even sure how a government like our own can possibly recognize a religious conclave as a state-entity when Separation of Church and State is a fundamental premise of our society.  If there was even concrete evidence that they did something terribly wrong that was unquestionably and universally accepted as a prosecutable offense, could we even do it due to that clause?

A church is not a state.  It doesn't matter that they've been recognized as such by entities throughout the world, the very concept of the Vatican as a nation is ridiculous.  It doesn't fit the true definition; they have no citizens and they have very limited territorial holdings.

Say you choose to grant them statehood for the sake of argument, then what does it make the Pope?  The head of a morally absolutist theocratic-dictatorship who claims infallibility, holds sway over citizens of nearly every nation across the world, disrespects other nation's sovereignty, dictates to people how they are supposed to act if they are going to be saved from an eternity of suffering; maybe our next stop on the good ole USA world-liberation tour should be Vatican City.
There's a difference between seeking a trial and seeking that particular punishment.  In order for that punishment to be carried out in a trial, there's the requirement of examination of the evidence and unbiased deliberation.  Saying "I want that person dead" is not the same as saying "I want that person to be arrested, the evidence to be accounted for, and the truth to come out, and if it comes out that they are guilty of the crime they have been accused of, I want to see them punished for it."

Once again, you are completely out of line Jude.

Did I ever say that a convicted priest shouldn't be punished under the laws where the crime took place?

Did I even once say that penance was enough to circumvent punishments dictated by the law?

Did I ever say that covering up any crime or helping a convict avoid punishment was OK?

This is the last time I'm going to tell you. Stop putting words in my mouth

Let me spell this out so theres no confusion. Any priest that committed any crime, and any priest that helped them avoid punishment after a conviction or avoid a trial should be extradited, tried, and if found guilty punished under the law. The inquisition office should also aggressively go after priests accused of wrong doing and give all of their findings to the local authorities once their investigation is completed.

On top of that, I believe that in every single case that was settled out of court, the Vatican should go back, charge them with extortion, and refuse to settle outside of court. Let the false accusers spend some time in prison and let the cases that actually happened come out so those men can face real justice.

None of that will happen and for a lot of reasons. I believe that the only way to end this is pressure from the church itself, not world leaders, not governments, and not other religions (including atheism). Yet we've been going through this emotional rollercoaster for years, having most cases turn out to be false, and we just want it the black mark to be gone. Sometimes it feels like we're back to being that ancient cult that has to hide itself for fear of being cut down (with words rather then swords though)

[Kip]

Politics and Religion are always heated debate topics - combined, they become more so.

I'm locking this topic for people to take a time out - I'll unlock it in a day or so....  In the meantime consider the following please -

Don't attack each other in the P&R forums - debate the issue.  When personal challenges are being thrown between people, it's no longer considered debate and that's starting to happen here.  Understand that people may interpret your words differently to what you intended, that they may respond in unintended ways as a result and that tangents will be discussed as well.

[Jude]

Once again, you are completely out of line Jude.

Did I ever say that a convicted priest shouldn't be punished under the laws where the crime took place?

Did I even once say that penance was enough to circumvent punishments dictated by the law?

Did I ever say that covering up any crime or helping a convict avoid punishment was OK?

This is the last time I'm going to tell you. Stop putting words in my mouth

I'm sorry that I was ambiguous with my statements and I understand why you took it that way.  It wasn't my intention to insinuate that you were okay with any of that, that wasn't even the impression that I got from what you were saying, but I believe everything I said was the ultimate logical consequence behind the positions you were taking.

Let me spell this out so theres no confusion. Any priest that committed any crime, and any priest that helped them avoid punishment after a conviction or avoid a trial should be extradited, tried, and if found guilty punished under the law. The inquisition office should also aggressively go after priests accused of wrong doing and give all of their findings to the local authorities once their investigation is completed.

This is where I am very confused.  You seem to agree with the premise of the thread and with me if you truly believe this, because that's exactly what the Pope is guilty of.

On top of that, I believe that in every single case that was settled out of court, the Vatican should go back, charge them with extortion, and refuse to settle outside of court. Let the false accusers spend some time in prison and let the cases that actually happened come out so those men can face real justice.

Agreed, but what I find troubling is your insinuations in this post and other posts that this is a common occurrence.  You've made references to accusations that were unfounded as if this has happened regularly.  I didn't question that claim of yours in a previous post to be a jerk, I did it because if you have information which is relevant to this situation I'd be willing to change my perspective on it.  It's true that I suspect that you don't have statistics on the matter, or much in the way of hard facts, which also needs to be pointed out to people reading this thread and engaging in this argument so that they can make up their mind for themselves.

None of that will happen and for a lot of reasons. I believe that the only way to end this is pressure from the church itself, not world leaders, not governments, and not other religions (including atheism). Yet we've been going through this emotional rollercoaster for years, having most cases turn out to be false, and we just want it the black mark to be gone. Sometimes it feels like we're back to being that ancient cult that has to hide itself for fear of being cut down (with words rather then swords though)

As stated, I'd like to see what you're basing this "most cases turn out false" thing on.  As far as I can tell with this recent bout, there's a flood of cases which almost undeniably occurred.

I don't believe that the religion has a right to fix its problems internally at this point when its problems are affecting countless societies externally.  There's a ridiculous amount of pedophile priests out there who have been protected from the consequences of their actions because of Vatican abuse of power.  I think that it's naive to expect that the abusers of that power are going to reform their institution unless they pay a price for what they've done (otherwise their actions will be vindicated).

[Brandon]

I'm sorry that I was ambiguous with my statements and I understand why you took it that way.  It wasn't my intention to insinuate that you were okay with any of that, that wasn't even the impression that I got from what you were saying, but I believe everything I said was the ultimate logical consequence behind the positions you were taking.This is where I am very confused.  You seem to agree with the premise of the thread and with me if you truly believe this, because that's exactly what the Pope is guilty of.

Thats incorrect. The court of public opinion has no place in the law. You can believe whatever you want but until a trial has happened and a jury has convicted him of a crime he is still innocent till proven guilty. No one can talk about trials, convictions, and extradition and then forget the most important statement in our judicial code because its inconveinant to their opinion

Agreed, but what I find troubling is your insinuations in this post and other posts that this is a common occurrence.  You've made references to accusations that were unfounded as if this has happened regularly.  I didn't question that claim of yours in a previous post to be a jerk, I did it because if you have information which is relevant to this situation I'd be willing to change my perspective on it.  It's true that I suspect that you don't have statistics on the matter, or much in the way of hard facts, which also needs to be pointed out to people reading this thread and engaging in this argument so that they can make up their mind for themselves. As stated, I'd like to see what you're basing this "most cases turn out false" thing on.  As far as I can tell with this recent bout, there's a flood of cases which almost undeniably occurred.

One of the articles posted earlier makes mention of over 400 counts of abuse happening by priests but only 6% turning out true. Thats 24 people convicted of a crime and 394 that were falsely accused and had their names dragged through the mud. 394 people that Americans can never trust again because they've been accused of child molestation (not convicted, just accused). Even some of the pedofiles priests that were sent away settled outside of court and are thus innocent in the eyes of the law. Go ahead and find any article about a number of priests being accused of abuse and you'll find that only a small number of them turned into actual convictions

Now I know what some people are thinking here. "You dont give someone $100000 if something didnt happen." but I think the exact opposite. My thought is "You dont take $100,000 if something really did happen. You fight to see that person punished, no matter what you have to endure you sacrifice everything to see see justice done and most importantly make sure they think twice before  hurting someone else."

Im not saying it doesnt happen, Im saying that its a very small number of proven cases yet theyre all getting labled as child molesters because of the accusation. False accusations are just as much part of the problem as the real pedofiles in the clergy, or am I the only one that thinks that?

I don't believe that the religion has a right to fix its problems internally at this point when its problems are affecting countless societies externally.  There's a ridiculous amount of pedophile priests out there who have been protected from the consequences of their actions because of Vatican abuse of power.  I think that it's naive to expect that the abusers of that power are going to reform their institution unless they pay a price for what they've done (otherwise their actions will be vindicated).

I think that because they are seen as a seperate entity they have every right to police their own but they should also turn over all information gathered by the office, to the local police when they discover a crime has been committed.

[Jude]

Thats incorrect. The court of public opinion has no place in the law. You can believe whatever you want but until a trial has happened and a jury has convicted him of a crime he is still innocent till proven guilty. No one can talk about trials, convictions, and extradition and then forget the most important statement in our judicial code because its inconveinant to their opinion

There's clearly enough evidence linking him to the allegations.  I don't think he should be considered guilty, but he should definitely be tried.  If he was anyone else, he would be.

One of the articles posted earlier makes mention of over 400 counts of abuse happening by priests but only 6% turning out true. Thats 24 people convicted of a crime and 394 that were falsely accused and had their names dragged through the mud. 394 people that Americans can never trust again because they've been accused of child molestation (not convicted, just accused). Even some of the pedofiles priests that were sent away settled outside of court and are thus innocent in the eyes of the law. Go ahead and find any article about a number of priests being accused of abuse and you'll find that only a small number of them turned into actual convictions

You're twisting facts here Brandon.  You're talking about the number of accusations that turned into convictions, not the number of accusations that were proven false.

Just because so many of the accusations did not lead to convictions does not mean that the percentage of false accusations is high.  That could just be a testament to the church's power and influence.  The fact that so few were convicted could very easily mean that they simply did a good job of covering it up.

It's fair to say very few convictions have come of those accusations, that much is true.

By the way, I can't even find the information you claim is in the previous articles and I've scanned them.

EDIT:  Did some research of my own and found the data.

• To date, the police have been contacted about 1,021 priests with allegations of abuse, or 24% of our total. Nearly all of these reports have led to investigations, and 384 instances have led to criminal charges. Of those priests for whom information about dispositions is available, 252 were convicted and at least 100 of those served time in prison. Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2% received prison sentences to date.

The 6%, is 6% of 4000 incidents, you completely misquoted the data.  So basically, of the cases that actually made it to court, 65% convicted the priests... very different from the number you were claiming.

EDIT2:  4392 is the total number of incidents.  Only 1021 were reported to the police... that means over 3/4s of the alleged victims didn't even say anything to the police.  I think it's extremely unfair to color them as greedy or trying to ruin someone's reputation in making their claims when they didn't even go to the police.

[Neroon]

It's all well and good going after the Pope, if you think he is guilty of covering the crimes up.  After all, no one should be above the law.

However, wouldn't it be better to get every single one of the actual abusers behind bars first?  The fact that Dawkins, Hitchens and co. are going after the Pope rather than urging the authorities to take the abusers into custody (apparently one Irish paedophile priest is currently in Spain making a living selling dodgy time-shares) shows that this is just a publicity stunt to discredit organised religion.  So the fact that they would rather discredit an organisation than get the guilty- and the guilty who pose a danger) behind bars brings them into disrepute in my eyes.

I've no love for the Catholic church but, frankly, it seems to me that in trying to make political (with a small p) capital out of the suffering of children puts Dawkins and Hitchens into an ethically dubious position.  Their big complaint is that, on seeing the situation, the Pope's first instinct was to protect the reputation of the Catholic church rather than to protect the children and bring the guilty to justice.  The fact that their instincts have led them to choose to blacken the reputation of the Catholic church rather than to bring the guilty to justice and prevent possible future abuse puts them in a moral sewer equivalent to that they claim the Pope is in. 

[Jude]

With all due respect Neroon, I think that's a false choice fallacy.  There's no reason you can't go after the Pope and the pedophiles at the same time, and charging both of them at once may be instrumental to convicting them.

[Neroon]

With respect Jude I would point out that Dawkins and Hitchens have made the choice already.  They have not once urged the authorities to go after the paedophiles despite the fact, as you point out, that they could have done so at the same time as going after the Pope.

[Jude]

1)  I haven't seen Dawkins or Hitchens say don't go after the others.  I do agree they've emphasized the pope more from what I've read, and I haven't read enough to be able to proclaim they haven't advocated going after all of them (but if they have, I think they're wrong).

2)  Even if they have said that only the Pope should be targeted, that doesn't make the point of view of going after the Pope as well is incorrect, it just means Dawkins and Hitchens particular positions are questionable.

The underlying idea doesn't need to be thrown away because the people who communicated it made a poor judgment.

[Neroon]

I agree.  However, it is ironic that the people questioning another's judgment show in the way they question it that their own judgment is impaired.

In the end, they exemplify the main reason why I find evangelists wearing on the nerves, namely that they lose all sight of anything but the worldview they are pushing.  Evangelical atheists are no less immune to this than their more numerous theist equivalents.

[Jude]

I agree, I don't care for Hitchens or Dawkins to be honest.  It's actually very strange for me to be on the same side of them in an issue for once.  I think they've both done a lot to worsen relations between the religious and the non-religious (which isn't comprised entirely of atheists--I certainly consider myself in this category but I'm no evangelical atheist per se).  I really wish there was another group of people who would take up the cause.

[Neroon]

You and me both.

[Illun]

I agree, I don't care for Hitchens or Dawkins to be honest.  It's actually very strange for me to be on the same side of them in an issue for once.  I think they've both done a lot to worsen relations between the religious and the non-religious (which isn't comprised entirely of atheists--I certainly consider myself in this category but I'm no evangelical atheist per se).  I really wish there was another group of people who would take up the cause.

But that's essentially all this accomplishes. Realistically speaking, no court will give this case due process. It will either be thrown out by someone who, like me, sees no merit in it, or it will be a show trial, which would then be overturned by a higher court for political expediency. This does nothing but widen the rift between organized atheism and the rest of the world. It doesn't really embarrass the Catholic Church any more than they already are, instead giving them a position as the victim of political machinations from a group of antireligious zealots.

[Jude]

1)  You're committing the fallacy of argument from final consequences if you're arguing that the Pope's arrest is unjustified because the trial will not succeed.

2)  Why don't you think someone shouldn't be arrested who assisted in the coverup of countless heinous crimes throughout the globe?  That's how I'm understanding your position at this point, there's really no grounds to argue on whether or not he did this at this point.  His signature is on documents moving these pedophile priests around after the fact that contain reports of what happened.

3)  This initiative wasn't started by anti-religious zealots.  Hitchens and Dawkins are jumping on-board of a movement started by human rights lawyers, they were not the genesis, and it's unfair to characterize everyone who believes the Pope should be punished for what he's done as an anti-religious zealot.

4)  Where exactly did you find the stated goal of this movement to "embarrass the Catholic Church?"  I haven't advocated such a position and I'm not sure I've seen anyone else arguing from that point of view either.  This is about justice, and even if it does not succeed, it will highlight the injustice of the Pope being held to a different standard than the rest of us.

EDITED for additional details.

[Illun]

1)  You're committing the fallacy of argument from final consequences if you're arguing that the Pope's arrest is unjustified because the trial will not succeed.

I made my argument for it being unjustified in an earlier post. In the post you're referring to, I argued that it was an ill conceived effort, for which the final consequence is a valid point.

2)  Why don't you think someone should be arrested who assisted in the coverup of countless heinous crimes throughout the globe?

Because I think the charge is trumped up bullshit, after having looked at the facts. It's "countless" because there's not an accurate count, not because it's a large number. There are statistics out there that clearly show it's no worse than the general population, and there are plenty who have been charged in the legal systems where the alleged crimes occurred, only 6% of which in the US, for example, were found guilty.

3)  This initiative wasn't started by anti-religious zealots.  Hitchens and Dawkins are jumping on-board of a movement started by human rights lawyers, they were not the genesis, and it's unfair to characterize everyone who believes the Pope should be punished for what he's done as an anti-religious zealot.

The article this topic started with states that the group behind this are a group of atheists. If that is inaccurate, I apologize for not having found the information you're referring to.

4)  Where exactly did you find the stated goal of this movement to "embarrass the Catholic Church?"  I haven't advocated such a position and I'm not sure I've seen anyone else arguing from that point of view either.  This is about justice, and even if it does not succeed, it will highlight the injustice of the Pope being held to a different standard than the rest of us.

Justice may be the speaking point for the people arguing it here, but it isn't for those referenced in the initial article.

[Jude]

The people in the initial argument did not mention embarrassing the catholic church either.  You're putting those words in their mouth.

As for the 6% statistic, I discussed earlier why that number is false.  To reiterate:  6% of the total accusations resulted in convictions, around 24% of the total accusations were actually reported to the police to be investigated, enough evidence was found in only 382 cases to bring the Priests accused to trial, and only 252 of those people brought to trial were found guilty.  Meaning that 65% of people who were brought to trial were found guilty.

Just because they weren't brought to trial doesn't mean they're innocent, especially not when there's evidence of the Catholic Church working conspiratorially to silence victims and protect the church.

There are no statistics measuring how many of the cases were "proven false" or even "dismissed as lacking in sufficient evidence" that I have seen.

As far as it being as common as what happens in the general population incidence-wise, that's completely immaterial.  It does not matter if child abuse happens more often in the courts or out in the world, no one's been debating that, that isn't related to the discussion whatsoever.  The problem is that the Catholic Church has a habit of covering up the fact that it has happened in the name of preserving their good name to the detriment of the past, present, and future victims.

Plus what threshhold of coverups is OK with you?  Lets assume only 6% of these are true, are you okay with them covering up the 6%?

There are plenty of documented cases which I have linked to in this thread of the Vatican covering up and protecting pedophile priests who, without a doubt, were guilty.  The school for the deaf incident reported involved the abuse of over 200 children.

Isn't 1 cover up 1 cover up too much for the supposed "perfect society" housing the mouth-piece for god on earth?

[Brandon]

There's clearly enough evidence linking him to the allegations.  I don't think he should be considered guilty, but he should definitely be tried.  If he was anyone else, he would be.You're twisting facts here Brandon.  You're talking about the number of accusations that turned into convictions, not the number of accusations that were proven false.

Up until now I was under the impression that you and several others were already presuming guilt. If that isn't the case then good. I've been clear that if the evidence shows he was involved in some kind of crime then yes arrest him as a head of state, perform a fair trial, and let justice be done. The pope being arrested and held to the same standard as us isn't what has me pissed off, its the blatant slander and extortion of the catholic church, its priests, and its followers

Just because so many of the accusations did not lead to convictions does not mean that the percentage of false accusations is high.  That could just be a testament to the church's power and influence.  The fact that so few were convicted could very easily mean that they simply did a good job of covering it up.

It's fair to say very few convictions have come of those accusations, that much is true.

If you cant prove it in a court of law then it didn't happen. I don't care what the prosecutors said during the trial, no guilty verdict means no crime took place. By our own code of law the people who were not convicted are innocent

By the way, I can't even find the information you claim is in the previous articles and I've scanned them.

EDIT:  Did some research of my own and found the data.
The 6%, is 6% of 4000 incidents, you completely misquoted the data.  So basically, of the cases that actually made it to court, 65% convicted the priests... very different from the number you were claiming.

EDIT2:  4392 is the total number of incidents.  Only 1021 were reported to the police... that means over 3/4s of the alleged victims didn't even say anything to the police.  I think it's extremely unfair to color them as greedy or trying to ruin someone's reputation in making their claims when they didn't even go to the police.

That is strange because that's the only article I've read over the past day about the subject and I cant seem to find it in there either. I know I got the numbers from somewhere yesterday, it was over 400 accusations and 6% of those leading to convictions or settlements outside of court. As Oniya pointed out to me though, I did screw up the math earlier (it would have been 376 innocent people not 394) but I was in a rush getting ready for a lunch date when I posted that. If I find the article that listed those numbers I quoted Ill be sure to post it

[Jude]

Up until now I was under the impression that you and several others were already presuming guilt. If that isn't the case then good. I've been clear that if the evidence shows he was involved in some kind of crime then yes arrest him as a head of state, perform a fair trial, and let justice be done. The pope being arrested and held to the same standard as us isn't what has me pissed off, its the blatant slander and extortion of the catholic church, its priests, and its followers

I don't think the Catholic Church's followers did anything wrong at all.  They're the victims here if anything.  My problem is purely with the way the Vatican handles this.  Even if it turns out that all of the negative allegations are true, that does not in any way reflect poorly on Catholics as a whole (in my opinion).  If anything, it makes me sympathize with them.

If you cant prove it in a court of law then it didn't happen. I don't care what the prosecutors said during the trial, no guilty verdict means no crime took place. By our own code of law the people who were not convicted are innocent

Legally, you're right, but the legality has a very high burden of proof to reach a conviction for a reason.  Truth is, even people who are convicted are sometimes innocent, just as people who aren't are sometimes guilty.  It's all a guess really, an approximation.  I do agree however that the Pope could be innocent, and a large number of priests accused could be innocent as well.

That is strange because that's the only article I've read over the past day about the subject and I cant seem to find it in there either. I know I got the numbers from somewhere yesterday, it was over 400 accusations and 6% of those leading to convictions or settlements outside of court. As Oniya pointed out to me though, I did screw up the math earlier (it would have been 376 innocent people not 394) but I was in a rush getting ready for a lunch date when I posted that. If I find the article that listed those numbers I quoted Ill be sure to post it

I've misquoted statistics before, don't worry about it too much.

Here's my position in a nutshell (and perhaps it's something we can both agree on):

We need to find legal experts who are as unbiased as possible (a mixture of people of all faiths including Catholics who are willing to entertain the notion of the Vatican having committed crimes) to review the evidence.  If there is sufficient evidence to bring about charges, I believe the Pope should be arrested and the charges should be brought up.  If there is not sufficient evidence, I don't think any legal action should be taken.

The evidence I've seen so far is pretty damning, I do think it points towards the Pope being involved in some illegal and immoral activities, but I realize that there's also a good chance that he's completely innocent.  What I object to is the shield of papal immunity and legal immunity he's developed.  We should not be afraid to ask the question, is he a criminal that should be arrested, simply because he's the head of a religious movement.  To me, that's the problem.

[Brandon]

Legally if you have evidence that exonorates someone of a crime then the Govenor of your state can pardon them. There have been a few cases throughout history (mostly after the discovery of DNA) where someone was pardoned after new evidence came forward.

The same isnt true of guilty people escaping punishment due to the double jeopardy clause in the judicial code.

The focus should be on priests that have escaped trial, or punishments after being convicted in a trial. Once that's done then I would be open to a full investigation into the Vatican's handling of the situations. I dont think any good could come from the Pope's arrest before that happened

[Illun]

The people in the initial argument did not mention embarrassing the catholic church either.  You're putting those words in their mouth.

I stated earlier that it was a publicity stunt and why.

As for the 6% statistic, I discussed earlier why that number is false.  To reiterate:  6% of the total accusations resulted in convictions, around 24% of the total accusations were actually reported to the police to be investigated, enough evidence was found in only 382 cases to bring the Priests accused to trial, and only 252 of those people brought to trial were found guilty.  Meaning that 65% of people who were brought to trial were found guilty.

I'll admit, I skimmed your responses to Brandon. Unfortunately, you edited it into a response to him. Re-read my post, I stated accurately "only 6% of those accused in the US". You're presuming coverup as the cause of others not going to trial. Of the 1021 reported to the police, only 384 had the evidence to be brought to trial, and yet everyone who even was accused in the larger number gets included as "evidence" that this is "widespread".

Just because they weren't brought to trial doesn't mean they're innocent, especially not when there's evidence of the Catholic Church working conspiratorially to silence victims and protect the church.

Innocent is not the issue. We're talking about due course of law. The accusation is that the Pope circumvented due course of law in a manner which was widespread enough to have constituted a crime against humanity. My point remains, it doesn't fit the definition for a crime against humanity.

As far as it being as common as what happens in the general population incidence-wise, that's completely immaterial.  It does not matter if child abuse happens more often in the courts or out in the world, no one's been debating that, that isn't related to the discussion whatsoever.  The problem is that the Catholic Church has a habit of covering up the fact that it has happened in the name of preserving their good name to the detriment of the past, present, and future victims.

Plus what threshhold of coverups is OK with you?  Lets assume only 6% of these are true, are you okay with them covering up the 6%?

This is merely an appeal to emotion. My argument was that the Pope should not be arrested because A. it was not a "crime against humanity" by definition and B. the arrest would serve no purpose even if it were just. How I feel about the alleged coverup IS immaterial to the discussion, while the actual number of incidents is NOT immaterial.

Isn't 1 cover up 1 cover up too much for the supposed "perfect society" housing the mouth-piece for god on earth?

Appeal to ridicule, and not relevant. While I may not respect the Catholic Church or the Pope, the irony of their belief system in relation to the current situation really doesn't affect where he should be arrested or not.

[Jude]

You've effectively argued that they shouldn't be arrested under crimes against humanity, and I think I agree with you (plus your criticisms of my argument made at the end are fairly effective in the context of that particular law--if we were discussing another however I don't think they would hold any weight), but there's a whole other host of legal issues which it seems that they could be arrested for.

I'm not a legal scholar, so I won't even bother to try and list them and claim which ones would and wouldn't work, but I think if there are grounds for indictment on any issue, they should be indicted.

Then there's the broader question:  if the Pope cannot be found guilty of any particular law, should such a law exist that could catch him?  In other words, if the Pope faces no consequences for his actions, is that unjust?

[Illun]

You've effectively argued that they shouldn't be arrested under crimes against humanity, and I think I agree with you (plus your criticisms of my argument made at the end are fairly effective in the context of that particular law--if we were discussing another however I don't think they would hold any weight), but there's a whole other host of legal issues which it seems that they could be arrested for.

But therein lies my point, it's the "crimes against humanity" that doesn't hold weight. The charges he's more likely guilty of require a whole different set of politics which are unlikely to result in his arrest. I don't condone the Pope's actions (alleged and otherwise), but to the question in the topic, my answer is no.

Then there's the broader question:  if the Pope cannot be found guilty of any particular law, should such a law exist that could catch him?  In other words, if the Pope faces no consequences for his actions, is that unjust?

How many heads of state have been involved in coverups of criminal actions over the years? Pragmatically speaking, such a law would not be enforceable. Instead, I think UN sanctions against the state that committed the crime are realistic and enforceable. You also have to keep in mind that the Pope, as I mentioned before, does not live within the same society we do. Our primary value system in the US, UK and similar nations, puts the life and wellbeing of a human higher than most things. The primary value system of the Pope, however, is to the sanctity and permanency of the Church. By the same token we would arrest him for crimes that harm children when he sets foot on another nation's soil, he could (and in the past, his predecessors have) arrested nearly everyone who was not of the faith. The sovereignty of independent states is what allows us to coexist with other peoples whose core values do not agree with our own, and this happens to be one such instance.

[Jude]

The Pope denied other nations their sovereignty by meddling in their legal affairs where he had no jurisdictional responsibility or power, that's precisely why their sovereignty shouldn't be respected.  His actions are quite clearly an obstruction of justice (which is illegal around the world I think).  You don't think it'd be fair to take him in on that?

[Brandon]

The Pope denied other nations their sovereignty by meddling in their legal affairs where he had no jurisdictional responsibility or power, that's precisely why their sovereignty shouldn't be respected.  His actions are quite clearly an obstruction of justice (which is illegal around the world I think).  You don't think it'd be fair to take him in on that?

Once again, thats presumption of guilt Jude.

[Illun]

The Pope denied other nations their sovereignty by meddling in their legal affairs where he had no jurisdictional responsibility or power, that's precisely why their sovereignty shouldn't be respected.  His actions are quite clearly an obstruction of justice (which is illegal around the world I think).  You don't think it'd be fair to take him in on that?

His alleged actions were to A. fail to report the accusations reported to them, and B. move some of the clergy accused. While these are construed under US and other nations laws as obstruction of justice, there is not an international law requiring you to report a crime to another nation's authorities. That does fall under diplomatic immunity. In light of that, his decision to move them to areas where their reputation wasn't tarnished has no relevance.

Before we discuss the fairness of it, consider, is the US required to report Chinese dissidents to the Chinese government?

[Jude]

I don't condone anything being done unless it goes through the proper channels of legality, of course, I just don't think it's necessary to repeat that every post Brandon.

The Roman Catholic Church is now embroiled in another sex abuse scandal after news broke on Thursday about a priest in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who was accused of abusing more than 200 boys at St. John’s School for the Deaf for more than 20 years.

Bishops Warn Pope of Abuse
According to Vatican documents from the mid-1990s, two Wisconsin bishops had urged then Cardinal Joseph Ratziner, now Pope Benedict XVI, to allow them to pursue a church trial against the priest.  Despite these allegations, Pope Benedict refused to sanction the trial after Reverend Lawrence Murphy, the alleged molester, wrote the Pope and said that he had repented his crimes and that he was sick.

The church simply ordered that the accused priest should not be allowed to give Mass outside of his own diocese. Murphy died in 1998.

Deaf Boys Were Priest's Victims
The priest has now been accused of molesting more than 200 deaf boys at the school from the 1950s until 1974.  Pope Benedict has been defending his position not to remove the priest despite the knowledge of what Murphy had done.

The two Wisconsin bishops had taken their stance to hold the trial against Murphy to try and forestall the present scandal.  They felt that the trial would have gone a long way to subdue parishioners.  Ratzinger's deputy, however, thought that the crimes had happened too long ago and took into account that the priest was sick at the time.

Deaf Boys Targeted in Confessional
Additional documentation from the period shows that many of the assaults started in the confessional.  At least 100 boys were molested this way.  One of the victims, Arthur Budzinski, voiced his opinion that Murphy targeted boys without deaf parents.  Since these parents had trouble communicating with their children, there was less chance of him getting caught.

Back in 2004, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee began mediation with a number of victims and has paid an undisclosed amount of compensation to the victims.  While the church won't release exact amounts, Budzinski has received $80,000.  In total, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee has paid close to $30 million to alleged victims of clergy abuse.

That does not fall into what you've said.  Also, there's clearly a difference between political defectors seeking asylum and child molesters.  Not... to mention the Vatican and well, every other Nation in existence.  If it is considered a nation, it is in legalese only, it's clearly different from any other nation in the world.

You don't think it's horribly unjust and wrong that some guy living in Rome was acting, basically, as the judge and jury for a United States Citizen who commuted crimes in the United States?  That's a clear violation of U.S. sovereignty.

[Illun]

Also, there's clearly a difference between political defectors seeking asylum and child molesters.  Not... to mention the Vatican and well, every other Nation in existence.  If it is considered a nation, it is in legalese only, it's clearly different from any other nation in the world.

What is the clear difference? You're taking a very nation-centric view of the world when you make a claim of that nature. While in our respective countries, child molesting is a horrible crime, speaking out against the government is treated as such in China. Just because it doesn't agree with our morals does not make it an injustice elsewhere.

You don't think it's horribly unjust and wrong that some guy living in Rome was acting, basically, as the judge and jury for a United States Citizen who commuted crimes in the United States?  That's a clear violation of U.S. sovereignty.

Read that more carefully, they pursued a church trial and were turned down for that church trial by the Pope. The only thing in what you posted that he did that isn't legal is failing to report it, which wasn't even his responsibility there, it fell to the bishops whom it had been reported to. He didn't even move the priest in that instance.

[Jude]

So... the Bishops are at fault too.  What's your point?

As far as the China vs. the Vatican thing goes, even in the Vatican's eyes they're not similar to China.  Read early in the posts where the Vatican claimed it is not a state.

EDIT:  I pasted something else early about the Vatican's statehood, here's the relevant material I referenced above (which I did not paste earlier)

Moreover, the Holy See itself, while claiming international legal personality, does not claim to be a State. Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, former Secretary for Relations with States of the Secretariat of State of the Holy See, has underlined that we must avoid the temptation of assimilating the Holy See and its international action with that of a State, with their thirst for power. For him, the Holy See is unquestionably a sovereign subject of international law but of a predominantly religious nature.

And it is not merely that the Vatican has failed to report crimes to the authorities throughout the world, which they have, but also that they actively worked to keep their clergymen from being prosecuted when they deserved such.

Helping a priest accused of child molestation relocate is almost the same as aiding a fugitive.  Though I assume you'll just argue that it's no different than political asylum.

Respecting the Vatican's Sovereignty and right to be free of the laws of other countries simply doesn't make sense when you consider the substantial amount of influence they have on other countries through their citizens and parishes.  If the Vatican was actually a state in any practical, real capacity beyond artificial designations set aside by international law, do you truly believe countries throughout the world would let them purchase land in their territory and build government facilities?

If they're going to be allowed that sort of intimate reach into other countries, shouldn't additional responsibilities come with that?

They're in a unique position and regularly abuse their power in the form of mobilizing their followers in foreign countries for their own political motives.  From threatening to refuse to give communion to people who disagree with the Church's stance on issues to telling Africans that HIV is "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems," he travels the world telling people what to do (often based on misleading or dubious facts).

If he was a secular leader only, do you really think he would be tolerated for very long by world leaders?  He's basically a monarch chosen to rule the Vatican with absolute authority by an oligarchy.

[Illun]

So... the Bishops are at fault too.  What's your point?

The Bishops in that article may be in violation of local law by not reporting the accusations, but the Pope is not. He was asked in his former position if they could hold a church trial and he denied the request. There is nothing in the article which claims he said not to tell the local authorities.

As far as the China vs. the Vatican thing goes, even in the Vatican's eyes they're not similar to China.  Read early in the posts where the Vatican claimed it is not a state.

EDIT:  I pasted something else early about the Vatican's statehood, here's the relevant material I referenced above (which I did not paste earlier)

Regardless of how the Vatican refers to themselves, they are granted essentially the same rights as a state by the UN. From a legal standpoint, they still retain the same sovereignty.

And it is not merely that the Vatican has failed to report crimes to the authorities throughout the world, which they have, but also that they actively worked to keep their clergymen from being prosecuted when they deserved such.

Erm...I explicitly mentioned that in what you're responding to.

Helping a priest accused of child molestation relocate is almost the same as aiding a fugitive.  Though I assume you'll just argue that it's no different than political asylum.

Political asylum is a legal status that is reported and recorded along with the stated purpose. For it to be the same, he would have to have brought these people to Rome and housed them there, not merely shuffled them to other communities. You're also lumping different things into the same pot. Relocation, though, does not prevent prosecution. If the accused were relocated outside the jurisdiction of the authorities over the crime involved, there are extradition processes. If the accused were simply moved to another community, the authorities need only show up and prosecute. Their decision was to save face, not evade prosecution.

Respecting the Vatican's Sovereignty and right to be free of the laws of other countries simply doesn't make sense when you consider the substantial amount of influence they have on other countries through their citizens and parishes.  If the Vatican was actually a state in any practical, real capacity beyond artificial designations set aside by international law, do you truly believe countries throughout the world would let them purchase land in their territory and build government facilities?

Other governments do this and it's called an embassy. My home state (US variety) operates offices in several foreign nations.

If they're going to be allowed that sort of intimate reach into other countries, shouldn't additional responsibilities come with that?

The intimate part is that they hold sway over the hearts and minds of so many people, not their legal actions, all of which are paralleled by other countries.

[Jude]

As far as the Vatican's nationhood goes, where exactly is that stated?  The article I linked to in the beginning explicitly says that the Vatican was not granted nationhood by the UN, it could be wrong, but I'd like to see your source if that is the case.  I realize they were granted observer status, and that implies nationhood, but that's only an implication.

Relocation does not prevent prosecution, but it sure as hell makes it a lot less likely and more difficult to pull off.

Churches and embassies have different rules by far.  They're not the same.  Not to mention there's a lot more churches...

[Silk]

Personally I do think the main aim of dawkins and hitchens is to go after the abusers... Put it this way

You can either process accusations against the individual priests, working against the catholics churches cover up wasting heck knows how much tax payers money to do it.

OR

You go after the pope and other athority figures in the cover up, get that covered up information released and given to the athorities, and bam you got all the enciminating evidence against each priest that has been abusing from the catholic churches internal investigations. Just one trial, gets them all saves money, manpower and time. Going after the pope in particular means there is no body above who is able to pull any strings or stunts since he is the highest athority. If it was a cardinal or lower chain administration they could be compermised from the inside by threats such as exomunication.

[HairyHeretic]

The Bishops in that article may be in violation of local law by not reporting the accusations, but the Pope is not. He was asked in his former position if they could hold a church trial and he denied the request. There is nothing in the article which claims he said not to tell the local authorities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041601699.html

CARDINAL CONGRATULATES CONVICTED BISHOP

Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi has said the pope was ready to meet more victims but not under pressure from the media. He could not say if a meeting would take place in Malta.

Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who at the time headed the Vatican department in charge of priests around the world, told Bishop Pierre Pican of Bayeux-Lisieux he was a model for all bishops for his behavior in the case that shocked France.

The priest, Rev. Rene Bissey, was sentenced to 18 years in jail for sexually abusing 11 boys and Pican got a suspended three-month sentence for not reporting the crimes.

"I congratulate you for not denouncing a priest to the civil administration," Castrillon Hoyos wrote.

"To encourage brothers in the episcopate in this delicate domain, this Congregation will send copies of this letter to all bishops' conferences."

Barbara Dorris of SNAP, a U.S.-based support group for clerical sex abuse victims, described the letter as "one of the most telling and troubling" among many internal Church documents now being published to expose the extent of the abuse crisis.

"In what other institution on this planet does a top official praise a colleague for hiding a criminal from the police?" she asked in a statement.

Spokesman Lombardi raised eyebrows among Vatican watchers by not denying the letter's authenticity and only saying it showed it was right to assign handling of all clerical abuse cases with minors to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- now the pope -- in 2001.

Then of course we have the 2001 letter referenced in this story

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/03/text-of-letter-showing-rc-child-abuse-subject-to-the-pontifical-secret.html

Please note the name on the bottom of the missive.

He directed the bishops to keep any issues of priestly abuse concealed within the church, under threat of excommunication.

How would you interpret that? An instruction to ensure secular authorities were made aware of abusive priests, or an instruction to keep everything hidden?

[DarklingAlice]

As far as the Vatican's nationhood goes, where exactly is that stated?  The article I linked to in the beginning explicitly says that the Vatican was not granted nationhood by the UN, it could be wrong, but I'd like to see your source if that is the case.  I realize they were granted observer status, and that implies nationhood, but that's only an implication.

The nationhood of the Vatican has nothing to do with the UN. The determination of nationhood comes from political treaties made between sovereign states. There are a number of nations that operate without the UN's approval and are no less nations because of that. In the case of the Holy See, it has a long standing status as a political and religious entity. The Holy See has a range of treaties with multiple countries and has a recognized seat in several international organizations and observer status in the UN. The Vatican is the city state of the Holy See. It's political independence was granted in the Lateran Treaty between the Holy See and Italy sometime in the early 1900s.

[mystictiger]

Although it looks like most of the points I was going to make have already been made, I just want to add this:

Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002. Does that mean it wasn't a state before then?

UN membership means that you've signed a treaty.
You can only sign treaties if you are a state.
If UN membership determines statehood, you have a circular argument.

[Jude]

Although it looks like most of the points I was going to make have already been made, I just want to add this:

Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002. Does that mean it wasn't a state before then?

UN membership means that you've signed a treaty.
You can only sign treaties if you are a state.
If UN membership determines statehood, you have a circular argument.

No one was arguing that in order to be a state you have to join the UN.  It was simply stated in the original article that the UN hasn't recognized the Vatican as a state.

However, I do see the point about the Vatican being recognized as a sovereign entity.  It's been treated that way by countless reputable nations, so although it certainly doesn't fit many traditional criteria for statehood, it's a lost cause to try and argue that it's not.

The more we discuss this, the less feasible it seems to actually arrest the Pope.  I'm certainly not for breaking of legal conventions and international accords in order to do so, the rule of law is more important (in my estimation).  That does open up another question however, if there's no legal basis for arresting the Pope, what (if anything) should be done to punish the Vatican for their actions?

[mystictiger]

The point I was making is that UN recognition of statehood is irrelevent. The UN has no power, no right, no ability to declare something a state or not.

[mystictiger]

Damnit. Web-browser keeps posting before I'm ready.

The key treaty here is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations:
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/vcdr/vcdr.html

You will note that the Holy See has signed it:
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=III-3&chapter=3&lang=en

None of the other states entered any reservations or denials or 'we don't believe the Holy See is a state'-type objections.

The Pope therefore, as visiting head of state, has diplomatic immunity.

[Jude]

It may be that there's no legal recourse, that doesn't mean actions can't be taken.  What do you think should be done?

EDIT:  Just to clarify, I'm not asking as if to say the alternative I originally proposed is better.  I think the people arguing that there's no legal precedent to go after the Pope have done an excellent job of doing so, so it's a real question.  I'm not entirely sure what can be done, so I'm wondering if any of you have any ideas on it (you're much better informed than me in this area, so).

[Oniya]

What do we do against other heads of state that engage in similar actions?

(Is honestly not sure that there's a precedent outside of war-time.)

[mystictiger]

The problem with trying to turn this into a international criminal law issue is this:

Pope = head of state of the Holy See.
British Paedo priest = British.


The priests aren't nationals of the Holy See. Wanting to arrest the Pope for Crimes Against Humanity is rather like wanting to arrest Queen Elizabeth II for crimes committed by British tourists in the US.

There's a way you deal with this: domestic criminal courts. You send the priest who done it to jail. You then send their superiors in your national church who hid / protected them to jail.

[HairyHeretic]

Yes, the problem was that rather than those priests being handed over to the courts, they were moved on elsewhere by their superiors, and their victims bribed or coerced into silence. The entire issue is how far up that chain that went ... who made the decision to ignore secular law in favour of church law? Whatever they may think, the law of God does not take precedence over the law of man. Those who took the decision to hide everything beneath a shroud of secrecy, and move abusive priests on to other parishes are probably guilty of some legal offense as a result of that.

I doubt we'll see anyone much higher than a bishop fall on their sword for this. That way the hierarchy can go "It was people that failed, not the system."

Not that anyone really believes anything they have to say anymore, given their behaviour and comments since the latest round of scandals broke.

[Illun]

As far as the Vatican's nationhood goes, where exactly is that stated?  The article I linked to in the beginning explicitly says that the Vatican was not granted nationhood by the UN, it could be wrong, but I'd like to see your source if that is the case.  I realize they were granted observer status, and that implies nationhood, but that's only an implication.

Others have already addressed this from another angle, but even so, legal implication holds the weight of law, even in treaty law.

Relocation does not prevent prosecution, but it sure as hell makes it a lot less likely and more difficult to pull off.

Reassignment after an embarrassment is common. And for that matter, it's not like the church kept quiet on the forwarding address. If it wasn't important enough to seek extradition when it crossed jurisdictions, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Churches and embassies have different rules by far.  They're not the same.  Not to mention there's a lot more churches...

You said office buildings, and that's what I responded to. You did not say churches. The ownership of the church buildings is held by the local parish, NOT the Holy See.

who made the decision to ignore secular law in favour of church law?

The first Pope, by Catholic tradition, Peter, in Acts 5:29, accompanied by Catholic doctrine that the church represents God's will on earth.

Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!"

I will point out, though, that nothing in scripture says a coverup is a good thing. In fact, it's demonstrated as bad when King David does it, and Jesus even says to "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar", which many Biblical scholars interpret as following the laws of your community so long as they don't require you to sin. This sort of "we've selected which verses benefit us today" approach is why I don't like organized religion. Community churches are what's described in scripture, and except for a few critical letters from Paul, they were independent of each other. If they stayed small, instead of pooling together in massive uncontrollable groups that insist on mindless slaves for members and forcing people to join for fear of being "the enemy" (like organized churches, multi-corporation unions, political parties, etc.), we wouldn't have these problems (or the Inquisition, or the massive industry strikes, or the last several Presidents...).

[mystictiger]

A few more articles that I found very interesting:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236096

What we learn is that Catholic priests have ... shock horror... the same tendency to abuse kids as people who aren't catholics. I would go so far to say that it's not the Church or the Pope or anything that's at fault here, rather our own useless human nature.

This leads on to the interesting question - should we arrest the Dalai Lama for abuse carried out by budhist monks? No. Because he's warm and cudly.

Essentially the call to arrest the Pope arises from the high-profile nature of abuse scandals and not because of their number.

[Oniya]

That's an excellent point.  Up until now, I wasn't aware that there had been abuse by Buddhist monks.  One question I would ask, though, is if the Dalai Lama is telling the monks not to 'denounce [an abuser] to the civil authorities', in the manner that the Catholic letter that HH posted earlier does.

[HairyHeretic]

This leads on to the interesting question - should we arrest the Dalai Lama for abuse carried out by budhist monks? No. Because he's warm and cudly.

Essentially the call to arrest the Pope arises from the high-profile nature of abuse scandals and not because of their number.

No, it's because he has been implicated as being part of a policy to cover up these crimes stretching back decades.

[Brandon]

An interesting note to what Im seeing in this thread is everyone blames the Pope for these moves of accused and convicted priests. Not one person (except me) has made mention of false accusations being part of the problem that lead to the Pope's actions. I continue to wonder, am I the only one that thinks false accusations are part of the problem?

[Jude]

If you can prove that they are, I'll believe it too.  As of now, I see no reason to.

EDIT:  Don't need proof necessarily, I'll settle for convincing evidence.

[Samael]

Not one person (except me) has made mention of false accusations being part of the problem that lead to the Pope's actions. I continue to wonder, am I the only one that thinks false accusations are part of the problem?

The only way to deal with accusations is to actually letting them be investigated.
Putting things under a rug and hope that no one saw will not help. It will lead to an explosion like this.

[Illun]

If you can prove that they are, I'll believe it too.  As of now, I see no reason to.

EDIT:  Don't need proof necessarily, I'll settle for convincing evidence.

Burden of proof is on the accuser though, not the accused. We're talking about jumping straight to arresting the Pope, rather than starting with requisitioning records on accused priests through legal routes. The whole "payoff" thing is, by its very nature, hearsay, since anyone involved in the transaction is either silent or suspect.

As for the notion that due course should be dispensed with in favor of a "cheaper" solution, that undermines the foundations of justice.

[Jude]

Burden of proof is on the accuser though, not the accused.

Legally, the burden of proof is on the accuser (at least in the United States as far as I'm aware).  When it comes to basic logic and trying to ascertain truth informally however, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  Brandon was making a claim that fraud is involved heavily in the accusations and I asked him for proof.  There was no discussion of the legality...

We're talking about jumping straight to arresting the Pope, rather than starting with requisitioning records on accused priests through legal routes. The whole "payoff" thing is, by its very nature, hearsay, since anyone involved in the transaction is either silent or suspect.

We need to find legal experts who are as unbiased as possible (a mixture of people of all faiths including Catholics who are willing to entertain the notion of the Vatican having committed crimes) to review the evidence.  If there is sufficient evidence to bring about charges, I believe the Pope should be arrested and the charges should be brought up.  If there is not sufficient evidence, I don't think any legal action should be taken.

I'm not a legal scholar, so I won't even bother to try and list them and claim which ones would and wouldn't work, but I think if there are grounds for indictment on any issue, they should be indicted.

I don't condone anything being done unless it goes through the proper channels of legality, of course, I just don't think it's necessary to repeat that every post Brandon.

The more we discuss this, the less feasible it seems to actually arrest the Pope.  I'm certainly not for breaking of legal conventions and international accords in order to do so, the rule of law is more important (in my estimation).  That does open up another question however, if there's no legal basis for arresting the Pope, what (if anything) should be done to punish the Vatican for their actions?

No one's saying "kill or imprison the Pope."  Throwing that out there was either a non-sequitur or a strawman, I'm not sure which.

If an official investigation is begun, they may find evidence which incriminates him (or exonerates).  The point is, refusing to do that investigation because of his status is wrong.  If he committed a crime, he should face the same penalty as anyone else.

More than likely, the Holy See will hide as much as they can if such an investigation occurs, which will at least show the public how secretive they are (thus have something to hide).

Yes, you're right, that's exactly what I was talking about, you're not misrepresenting my words at all.

Edited to put italics on sarcasm.  I think it makes it just that much more snazzy.

[Brandon]

True but in this case, I dont have to provide proof because the courts and those that settled outside of court already provided it for me. Every person who settled or pursued a trial but didnt manage to convict them was accusing an innocent man of wrong doing. Thats how our justice system works.

I can personally only count for the case that I experienced but I can attest that the Father who was accused in our church never had an inappropriate moment with anyone and further more that government officials tried to convince us otherwise when an investigation started up. I can also say that the charges were dropped when they refused to settle outside of court and that he continued to serve the same parish till he passed away (which was 3 or 4 years later). Looking back on it it was a case that screamed fraud. It may only be 1 of thousands of cases but its enough for me to doubt the legitamacy of all claims.

Even so I would be a fool if I didnt admit that some priests do have inappropriate moments with followers of the church but because of my personal experiences and because of the lack of convictions I am convinced that a vast majority are false accusations. Some would say, thats all probability, so lets take a moment and pose a probability question. Is it more likely that in over 4000 cases that a priest risked his faith, freedom, and reputation or that someone thought they could make a quick buck without any risk to themselves?

[Jude]

True but in this case, I dont have to provide proof because the courts

Which held 380ish trials, in which they found 250ish of the people accused guilty... roughly 65%.

and those that settled outside of court already provided it for me.

Yes, but the proof doesn't say what you want it to.  The only information we have on the subject suggests that 65% of the accusations were valid, but then again just because 65% of the accusations that went to court were able to turn into convictions doesn't really mean anything either.

Every person who settled or pursued a trial but didnt manage to convict them was accusing an innocent man of wrong doing. Thats how our justice system works.

Legally?  Yes.  You keep forgetting there's a difference between legality and reality.  It's pretty obvious that O.J. Simpson killed his wife, he wrote a book later on called "how I would do it if I did it" and tried to get it published, and O.J. Simpson is "innocent" legally.

To establish if the accusations were largely false with any real predictive ability, you'd need to follow up a random sampling of the reports (with a fairly large sample size) and investigate whether or not they were completely unfounded.  Then you could statistically extrapolate based on those results to get some general overview--such information does not currently exist.  Could many of the cases be without merit?  Yes.  Is there any solid reason to believe that?  No way.

I can personally only count for the case that I experienced but I can attest that the Father who was accused in our church never had an inappropriate moment with anyone

So you think.  You obviously don't know for certain unless you spent every moment around him of every waking day.  People can do things you don't expect--remember what is always said of serial killers by their neighbors?  BUT HE WAS SO NICE.

and further more that government officials tried to convince us otherwise when an investigation started up. I can also say that the charges were dropped when they refused to settle outside of court and that he continued to serve the same parish till he passed away (which was 3 or 4 years later). Looking back on it it was a case that screamed fraud. It may only be 1 of thousands of cases but its enough for me to doubt the legitamacy of all claims.

So basically, one situation is enough to make you believe that a good portion of the accusations are false.  That's not even remotely rational Brandon.

Even so I would be a fool if I didnt admit that some priests do have inappropriate moments with followers of the church but because of my personal experiences and because of the lack of convictions I am convinced that a vast majority are false accusations. Some would say, thats all probability, so lets take a moment and pose a probability question. Is it more likely that in over 4000 cases that a priest risked his faith, freedom, and reputation or that someone thought they could make a quick buck without any risk to themselves?

Except... if someone actually was intent on making a quick buck without any risk to themself, in those 4000 cases, wouldn't they have actually led to police reports?  You're honestly telling me that you believe the other 3000 people who made accusations about molestation--but did nothing to report it to the authorities and actually seek money--made it up in order to get money.  Yes... cause that makes sense.

[Brandon]

I think this really boils down to our presumptions and doubts. I presume that everyones innocent till proven otherwise. One of the aspects of human nature is that once you start doubting its hard to stop, and I doubt the legitamacy of all accusations against catholic priests because of my own experience. Having one lier turn up and accuse a man who I am sure is innocent and having social workers try to convince us that the truth was false is enough for me because it maintains that someone is innocent when proof wasnt provided and is consistant with the fact that our society tends to side with the "victim".

I dont mind calling for an investigation within the church, but I also say that those that settled outside of court need to be investigated as well. Let the priests that commited crimes face justice and let the people that extorted money out of the catholic church spend some time in prison

[Jude]

You're doubting someone no matter what Brandon.  The choice isn't optimism vs. pessimism, it's whether or not to believe the self-proclaimed victims over the priests.  There's still a winner and a loser, and you're calling them liars, you are pronouncing judgment on them, and if they are lying about that, then that is a crime you are accusing them of.  You're still making a pronouncement of guilty, just not on the priests.

[Brandon]

You're doubting someone no matter what Brandon.  The choice isn't optimism vs. pessimism, it's whether or not to believe the self-proclaimed victims over the priests.  There's still a winner and a loser, and you're calling them liars, you are pronouncing judgment on them, and if they are lying about that, then that is a crime you are accusing them of.  You're still making a pronouncement of guilty, just not on the priests.

Doubt and accusations are two very different things. Ive been clear that I doubt the legitamacy of all claims, but the only ones I would be ready to accuse outright are those that settled outside of court. Even then I would reinvestigate and if I found evidence to support the priests innocence charge them with extortion. Just like you Im asking for proper investigations through the right channels. Im just asking for the "victims" to be looked at

[Illun]

Legally, the burden of proof is on the accuser (at least in the United States as far as I'm aware).  When it comes to basic logic and trying to ascertain truth informally however, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  Brandon was making a claim that fraud is involved heavily in the accusations and I asked him for proof.  There was no discussion of the legality...

He didn't make a claim, he posited an alternative that seemed more likely to him. You insisted on proof that an alternative explanation was absolutely true.

Yes, you're right, that's exactly what I was talking about, you're not misrepresenting my words at all.

I'm wasn't representing your words at all, I'm referring to the discussion at hand, the arrest of the Pope. I've seen no articles posted stating that any attempt has been made through legal recourse to obtain the church records for any of these cases and not been met. Instead, I've only seen either denouncements of the Pope and bare assertions about what he is alleged to have done. I will grant the irony of the Catholic church being presumed guilty and denounced without due legal process, bearing a passing resemblance to what it did to heretics over the centuries, but poetic justice isn't the same as justice.


Edit: Since you seem to believe that editing in something is the same as posting, here's my response.

[Jude]

He didn't make a claim, he posited an alternative that seemed more likely to him. You insisted on proof that an alternative explanation was absolutely true.

If you can prove that they are, I'll believe it too.  As of now, I see no reason to.

EDIT:  Don't need proof necessarily, I'll settle for convincing evidence.

Unfortunately at this point I need to ask you if you're even reading my posts at all.