What to do with an ex Pope?

[tsig]

This is wrong. The "Epistula de delictis gravioribus", written and distributed by Ratzinger in the name of Pope John Paul II in 2001, did not tell them not to go to the police. The secrecy was about the church internal trial process instead. A person who found out about sex abuse and is involved in such a trial must not reveal the trial, but can report the crime to the police.

No. The name was "Epistula de delictis gravioribus", and it replaced "Crimen Sollicitationis". EDDG put child abuse in the same category as eucharistic desecration, and it obliged church officials to centrally report cases of child abuse to prevent local cover ups.
Btw, this would have been a great opportunity for you to demonstrate skepticism. Instead, you took a claim at face value just because it nicely fits your preconceived world view.

The church official reports the case to other church officials. IOW a cover up

In addition, the document lists one offence of a moral character, not directly connected with administration of the sacraments, as reserved in the same way as these to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, namely, the offence of a cleric (a bishop, priest or deacon) who commits a sexual sin with someone under 18 years of age.

Reservation of these offences to the Congregation does not mean that the Congregation itself tries those accused of committing them. It requires instead that, if a preliminary investigation shows that it is at least probable that the offence was committed, the ordinary (in the Eastern Catholic Churches called the hierarch) is to consult the Congregation on the manner in which his own tribunal is to proceed. In addition, any appeals from the verdict of that tribunal are to be made to the Congregation, instead of the usual appeals tribunal.

In the case of criminal actions brought before an ecclesiastical tribunal against someone accused of offences reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, prescription normally limits to ten years from the date of commission of an offence the time within which the prosecution may be initiated;[11] but the document De delictis gravioribus lays down that, in the case of a sexual offence against a minor, the period of ten years begins to run only when the minor reaches 18 years of age.
See also


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_delictis_gravioribus

 

[ddt]

This is wrong. The "Epistula de delictis gravioribus", written and distributed by Ratzinger in the name of Pope John Paul II in 2001, did not tell them not to go to the police. The secrecy was about the church internal trial process instead. A person who found out about sex abuse and is involved in such a trial must not reveal the trial, but can report the crime to the police.

Here is an English translation of the letter.

You're absolutely right the letter says nothing explicitly about reporting to the secular authorities. But what is the implicit message when the internal church process is veiled in secrecy and the bishop has to ask permission of the Vatican to proceed with his investigations? From the letter:

As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which unless it calls the case to itself because of special circumstances of things, after transmitting appropriate norms, orders the ordinary or hierarch to proceed ahead through his own tribunal.

Moreover, what is the further message when it may take 18 months to get a reply from the Vatican?

No. The name was "Epistula de delictis gravioribus", and it replaced "Crimen Sollicitationis". EDDG put child abuse in the same category as eucharistic desecration, and it obliged church officials to centrally report cases of child abuse to prevent local cover ups.

Yes, it's really great that the Vatican considers child sexual abuse as serious as ecumenical communion.

 

[ddt]

Vatican City and the Holy See can do with its citizens whatever the sitting Pope pleases. Assuming that there is an abdiication agreement (which is routine), then Ratzinger presumably will remain an employee of the Church assigned to the Vatican, retain his Vatican City ciitizenship, and most crucially, hold a Holy See diplomatic passport.

As long as he travels on that, avoids territory that has no diplomatic relations with the Holy See, and the new Pope doesn't extradite him, he should be golden.

Seriously, he retains a diplomatic passport? And why should that he honoured when he obviously has no diplomatic role? (Serious question: what is being done with "diplomats" who are merely spies?)

Apart from that, he's a non-voting cardinal in indifferent health. There's no pressing need to do anything at all with him. Let go and let God, so to speak.

Why? Justice should be done. The world also still chases Nazis, even though they're in their 80s or 90s now.

 

[Craig B]

... Why? Justice should be done. The world also still chases Nazis, even though they're in their 80s or 90s now.

Can we retain a sense of proportion? Please, this is absurd. The Pope is not going to be arrested. Nor should he be. That is how things were in the Church, and it is condemned to the infamy which its conduct deserves. In Ireland there are these sexual scandals, and even this week the revelations about the Magdalene Laundries, and how the Irish State abetted this monstrous exploitation. The immediate perpetrators of this and of the sexual crimes are or ought to be punished, and the Church is to be punished institutionally by civil action by the victims, and by paying appropriate compensation. But to arrest the ex-Pope is superfluous, and it won't happen anyway. I'd like it to be able to happen to that scoundrel, but let's not be ridiculous.

 

[eight bits]

Seriously, he retains a diplomatic passport? And why should that he honoured when he obviously has no diplomatic role? (Serious question: what is being done with "diplomats" who are merely spies?)

I don't know what's in his abdication agreement. I assume he had a lawyer, and it is in the Holy See's gift. The passport isn't diplomatic because its holder is a diplomat, but rather its honor is a courtesy one sovreign extends another, for reciprocity if nothing else.

Of course, I fully agree with Craig B that arresting the ex-Pope is a tad far-fetched, but...

American and other former heads of states have some continuing concern about arrest on foreign soil, based on possible criminal construction of actions taken while in office. The problem may be especially acute for American Presidents, heads of government as well as of state who, like a Pope, actually do things in office. Any country at all might assert ius gentium jurisdiction over "W" Bush, say for operating Gitmo. An ex-Pope really wouldn't be unique in this regard.

Generally, diplomats who really are spies are expelled, if the host sovreign wishes to be rid of them (reciprocity is a wonderful thing though). Immunity for offenses committed while in the country during service, as espionage by a diplomat would typically be, is a different matter from extending courtesies to a visitor as a favor to another sovreign.

Why? Justice should be done. The world also still chases Nazis, even though they're in their 80s or 90s now.

Justice should be done, to be sure. Reasonable people can differ what justice requires. I'd be more interested in selling the Vatican's art and manuscript collections to compensate their victims than a symbolic personal retribution against an individual. If I was interested in a symbol, then I'd extradite Cardinal Law, if American authorities still wanted him.

Yet another reason why I suspect the upcoming conclave isn't going to elect me Pope .

 

[yomero]

Of course it is highly unlikely that Ratzinger would be prosecuted. But he should be.

 

[Verklagekasper]

An internal investigation in 2006 proved the accusations to be true. Benedict XVI ordered Maciel to leave the leadership of the Legion and to dedicate his remaining years to '' prayer and penance.''

Ratzinger knew the facts in 1999 and decided not to act. The 2006 investigation resulted in merely disciplining Maciel within the Church.

Ratzinger started an internal investigation in 1999. In 2002 he stopped his investigations, probably because John Paul II told him to do so. In 2005, briefly before John Paul II's death, Ratzinger started another internal investigation, announcing that he was about to remove "filth" from the Church. Maciel was requested to withdraw from his ministry in lieu of further investigation and prosecution. In May 2006, Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, disciplined him: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asked Maciel to live "a reserved life of penitence and prayer, relinquishing any form of public ministry”; a canonical trial was ruled out because of his advanced age and poor health. Further sanction came in 2007, when the order was told to remove obedience vows requiring religious never to criticise superiors and to inform on any dissent within the order.

 

[Verklagekasper]

You're absolutely right the letter says nothing explicitly about reporting to the secular authorities. But what is the implicit message when the internal church process is veiled in secrecy and the bishop has to ask permission of the Vatican to proceed with his investigations? From the letter:

The "Epistula de delictis gravioribus" does not suggest that crimes should be kept secret from secular authorities. Period.
At best, one could say that it is not clear about what to do with regard to secular authorities. But then again, it is not a FAQ for handling abuse cases. It regulates the trials of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

 

[ddt]

The "Epistula de delictis gravioribus" does not suggest that crimes should be kept secret from secular authorities. Period.
At best, one could say that it is not clear about what to do with regard to secular authorities. But then again, it is not a FAQ for handling abuse cases. It regulates the trials of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Really, you don't see the incompatibility of secrecy in church investigations with reporting to the secular authorities?

Bishop N. Aive hears accusations that priest K. Fiddler has been sexually abusing children. The accusations sound credible to him, so he reports it to the Inquistion Congregation for Doctrine in Faith, and he reports it to the police. Next day, the paper runs an article:

Pastor Kiddy F. arrested on suspicion of sexual abuse of children. A police spokesman said the accusations were reported to the police by the bishop.

But the paper may not run an article:

Bishop N. Aive has initiated church investigations against pastor Kiddy F. because of alleged sexual abuse of children. The pastor may be defrocked as a result of this.

Sorry, that does not compute. No bishop would be so naive to think that was the intention of the secrecy.

 

[steve s]

What to do with an ex Pope?



Steve S

 

[Verklagekasper]

Really, you don't see the incompatibility of secrecy in church investigations with reporting to the secular authorities?

No. Because there is no such incompatibility. The Vatican does not, and should not publish decrees universally demanding reporting of crimes to state authorities. Because not every state in the world guarantees fair trials and adequate punishments. Collaboration with state authorities has to be regulated on national level. For example, the German catholic bishop conference officially adviced church officials to report every abuse case immediately to public prosecutors.

 

[ddt]

No. Because there is no such incompatibility. The Vatican does not, and should not publish decrees universally demanding reporting of crimes to state authorities. Because not every state in the world guarantees fair trials and adequate punishments.

Did you not read the part of my post you didn't quote? The church trial must be kept secret - so you said yourself - but church authorities are free to report to the police?

Let's turn again to pastor K. Fiddler and bishop N. Aive, who reports him to the police. The paper reads next morning:

Police have arrested pastor Kiddy F. on charges of sexual abuse against minors. A police spokesman said that bishop N. Aive had reported the pastor to the police.

And this journalist has done his homework, so he continues:

According to the Vatican rules laid out in the "Epistula de delictis gravioribus", there must also be church proceedings against the pastor, possibly leading to his defrocking.

Not so secret anymore, that church trial, hmm? And more general, what sense does it make to keep the church trial a secret, or try to do that, while the accused is in jail awaiting (secular) trial?

Collaboration with state authorities are to be regulated on national level. For example, the German catholic bishop conference officially adviced church officials to report every abuse case immediately to public prosecutors.

[ citation needed ]

A bit of honesty is in place, really. For one, name the year. From 2002:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zum_Vorgehen_bei_sexuellem_Missbrauch_Minderj%C3%A4hriger_durch_Geistliche_im_Bereich_der_Deutschen_Bischofskonferenz:

Abschnitt IV befasst sich mit der Zusammenarbeit mit den Strafverfolgungsbehörde: „In erwiesenen Fällen sexuellen Missbrauchs Minderjähriger wird dem Verdächtigten zur Selbstanzeige geraten und ggf. das Gespräch mit der Staatsanwaltschaft gesucht. [...] In erwiesenen Fällen sexuellen Missbrauchs Minderjähriger wird dem Verdächtigten - falls nicht bereits eine Anzeige vorliegt oder Verjährung eingetreten ist - zur Selbstanzeige geraten und je nach Sachlage die Staatsanwaltschaft informiert.“

Or in English: the church authorities would advice the perpetrator to report himself to the police, and maybe, maybe have a chat with the DA. Only in 2010, this was changed to the policy you say: always report (unless the victim objects).

Don't you think there's at least a moral obligation to report crimes to the police? I thought the idea of a church was to provide a moral compass. Some compass this is.

 

[Verklagekasper]

The church trial must be kept secret - so you said yourself - but church authorities are free to report to the police?

Yes.

A bit of honesty is in place, really. For one, name the year. From 2002: ...
Only in 2010, this was changed to the policy you say: always report (unless the victim objects).

The Wiki-article confirms what I said. Talking about honesty, you should have mentioned that objection of the victim alone is not the criterion to not report sexual abuse. The abuse may not be reported "if the victim explicitly wishes so, the non-reporting is legal, and no further victims are known". Also, the guidelines explicitly declare that church internal investigations must not hinder secular investigations and that internal investigatons don't have preference over secular investigations.

Don't you think there's at least a moral obligation to report crimes to the police?

It depends. Generally, crimes should be reported. On the other hand, for instance, I have no objections to the confessional secret of the catholic church.

 

[Verklagekasper]

Ratzinger started an internal investigation in 1999. In 2002 he stopped his investigations, probably because John Paul II told him to do so. In 2005, briefly before John Paul II's death, Ratzinger started another internal investigation, announcing that he was about to remove "filth" from the Church. Maciel was requested to withdraw from his ministry in lieu of further investigation and prosecution. In May 2006, Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, disciplined him: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asked Maciel to live "a reserved life of penitence and prayer, relinquishing any form of public ministry”; a canonical trial was ruled out because of his advanced age and poor health. Further sanction came in 2007, when the order was told to remove obedience vows requiring religious never to criticise superiors and to inform on any dissent within the order.

An addition:
In May 2010 the Vatican published a declaration of the Pope to the Legion of Christ, which among other things stated:
"The extreme severe and objectively amoral behavior of P. Maciel, which has been confirmed by undeniable proof, consists at times of real crimes and reveals a ruthless life without real religious meaning."

But yes, Pope Benedict didn't send in a Vatican killer-command to execute Maciel in Bin-Laden-style. Clearly, he must be arrested for that.

 

[ddt]

Yes.

You fail again to address the logical impossibility of keeping the church trial a secret and at the same time report to the police so that a criminal trial takes place.

The Wiki-article confirms what I said. Talking about honesty, you should have mentioned that objection of the victim alone is not the criterion to not report sexual abuse. The abuse may not be reported "if the victim explicitly wishes so, the non-reporting is legal, and no further victims are known".

I wrote the victim. The use of the definite article implies there's only one.

Also, the guidelines explicitly declare that church internal investigations must not hinder secular investigations and that internal investigatons don't have preference over secular investigations.

Great. And you fail to mention that this only happened after a wave of abuse cases had become known, begin 2010, and sharp criticism from the Justice Minister.

And then there's the calling off of the scientific investigation last month. The German RCC suddenly cited privacy concerns, though they had contractually obligated openness to all their files to the scientists.

It depends. Generally, crimes should be reported.

Oh, that's a real moral answer. And it took the RCC only about 2,000 years to find out.

On the other hand, for instance, I have no objections to the confessional secret of the catholic church. Nor do I have objections to the policy of the German bishop conference.

I don't see what the confessional has to do with this - except then for those cases where the priest perpetrated the sexual abuse during the confessional. I don't see any secular reason why a priest should be able to call on priveleged communication and, say, a boy scout leader not. They're both just leaders in a club.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

For some reason I'm reminded of the song Drunken Sailor.

What shall we do with a papal failure?
What shall we do with a papal failure?
What shall we do with a papal failure?
Early in the morning.

Hoorah! And up she rises.
Hoorah! And up she rises.
Hoorah! And up she rises.
Early in the morning.

Put him in the long-boat and make him bale her.
Put him in the long-boat and make him bale her.
Put him in the long-boat and make him bale her.
Early in the morning.

Hoorah! And up she rises.
Hoorah! And up she rises.
Hoorah! And up she rises.
Early in the morning.

What shall we do with a papal failure?
What shall we do with a papal failure?
What shall we do with a papal failure?
Early in the morning.

Hoorah! And up she rises.
Hoorah! And up she rises.
Hoorah! And up she rises.
Early in the morning.

Put him in the guardroom till he gets sober.
Put him in the guardroom till he gets sober.
Put him in the guardroom till he gets sober.
Early in the morning.
​

How synergistic! I was going to post the same sea shanty with the refrain I remember.

Put him in the scuppers with the hosepipe on him and etc.

 

[fuelair]

Seriously, he retains a diplomatic passport? And why should that he honoured when he obviously has no diplomatic role? (Serious question: what is being done with "diplomats" who are merely spies?)


Why? Justice should be done. The world also still chases Nazis, even though they're in their 80s or 90s now.

Sorry, but pretty much by definition the ex-Pope would clearly be considered an elder statesman as his authority is now limited but he is still given respect bu parishoners around the world - he still represents the church and Vatican city. Though frankly I see little if any travel in his future.

 

[fuelair]

As to the diplomats/spies thing, they are carefully monitored, any contacts are carefully monitored and disposed of/questioned with prejudice. Their effectiveness is quite limited. Diplomatic immunity only goes so far and accidents are easy to arrange if needed.

 

[Verklagekasper]

You fail again to address the logical impossibility of keeping the church trial a secret and at the same time report to the police so that a criminal trial takes place.

I have addressed that. But you fail to realize your misconception of the scope of the secrecy even when confronted with facts that prove your interpretation wrong. Again, the secrecy is about the canonical trial, not the reporting of the crime to secular prosecutors. As already mentioned, German catholic bishops have guidelines demanding to report abuse cases to public prosecutors. These have been applied in practice. For example, in the case of bishop Mixa, the diocese of Augsburg reported suspicions of sexual abuse of a boy to the police. Perhaps you should have told them that this was logically impossible?

Great. And you fail to mention that this only happened after a wave of abuse cases had become known, begin 2010, and sharp criticism from the Justice Minister.

Yes, the catholic church took the concerns of the public seriously and reacted. Also, Pope Benedict visited many abuse victims during his travels, publically apologized to them, and did overall more against abuse in the church than any of his predecessors.

Comparing the bad press they receive for that to the indifference towards abuse cases in the potestant church, perhaps they just should have done nothing. Last year, protestant Bishop Maria Jepsen got away with the non-reporting of an abusing pastor. No big deal in the press.

 

[catsmate]

He's the head of his country (retired Good try at extraditing him.

However if he leaves the Holy See.....

How detached from reality can one get? There is nothing to prosecute or arrest him for.

Perhaps. However if a prosecution is launched against him he can be arrested under a EAW to face trial.

Vatican City and the Holy See can do with its citizens whatever the sitting Pope pleases. Assuming that there is an abdiication agreement (which is routine), then Ratzinger presumably will remain an employee of the Church assigned to the Vatican, retain his Vatican City ciitizenship, and most crucially, hold a Holy See diplomatic passport.

As long as he travels on that, avoids territory that has no diplomatic relations with the Holy See, and the new Pope doesn't extradite him, he should be golden.

Apart from that, he's a non-voting cardinal in indifferent health. There's no pressing need to do anything at all with him. Let go and let God, so to speak.

A diplomatic passport does not grant immunity from prosecution. Such status can only be obtained with the consent of the country being visited and is not automatic.