What to do with an ex Pope?

[Brainache]

...
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.

...

Seems odd that an organisation which claims to be The Moral Authority needs to be shamed into doing the right thing. Doesn't it?

 

[eight bits]

A diplomatic passport does not grant immunity from prosecution.

I'm unsure of your point. I distinguished diplomatic immunity from the courtesies one sovreign routinely extends to another, and the holders of such travel documents from "diplomats."

Such status can only be obtained with the consent of the country being visited and is not automatic.

Yes, that's part of being sovreign. We seem to be in agreement about that, too.

So, add to that the inherent implausibility of any jurisdiction he'd want to visit ever trying to arrest him in the first place, and we have a guy who's probably not going to do hard time soon.

I do, however, disagree with another poster's

There is nothing to prosecute or arrest him for.

There's more than enough to support an American indictment for conspiracy. It won't happen, but not for lack of something sufficient. The standard just isn't that demanding, but there isn't the political will to pursue criminal charges aginst others of rank, who would be even easier to prosecute successfully.

 

[ddt]

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.

No you haven't addressed that. You have said yourself that the church trial must be kept a secret - not only the contents of the trial, but also the very fact that there is a trial.

Then, reporting to the police is impossible: it is a near certainty that this will be reported in the press. Moreover, it was public policy since Ratzi's letter of 2001 that there must be a church trial in case of sexual absue allegations.

So, if you report to the police, everyone can read in the paper there's a charge of sexual abuse against a priest, and everyone can conclude there's a church trial against the priest.

As already mentioned, German catholic bishops have guidelines demanding to report abuse cases to public prosecutors.

Since 2010 when public pressure was so high that they could not do otherwise. Not in 1982, when Peter Hullermann was transferred from Essen to Munich. Not in 2001 when Ratzi wrote that letter. Not in 2002 with the first guideline.

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?

Are you sure you're not mixing up subject and object here?

We're talking about the same Mixa who knew exactly why priests committed sexual abuse:

The sexual revolution of the 1960s is at least partly to blame for this.

And the same Mixa that:

In March 2010 he was accused of physical abuse by five ex-pupils of a children's care home, which Mixa served as a visiting priest in the 1970s and 1980s.[4][5][6] He has denied the allegations. Further accusers have come forward and the bishop says that he cannot remember any of them.[7] In April 2010 Mixa stated that he cannot exclude having slapped children 20–30 years ago saying he was "sorry for causing many people grief", though, according to BBC, he didn't explain what exactly he meant.

Now, I understand from his age (born in 1941) that he must have heard the phrase "Ich habe es nicht gewusst" in his childhood on a nearly daily basis, but I'd hoped he'd have more brains at age 68.

But wait, there is more:

Prosecutors in the Bavarian city of Augsburg on Friday said that they had opened a preliminary probe into sexual abuse allegations against German Bishop Walter Mixa.

The 68-year-old has been accused of sexually abusing a boy while he was bishop of Eichstaett between 1996 and 2005.

Catholic officials are reported to have called police over claims that Mixa breached rules on sexual contact with minors.

I really need a citation to see that this man has reported a single priest to the police.

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.

Anything is more than zero, duh. Ratzi also appointed Mixa to oversee the pastoral care of health care workers. I can see from his resume he's exactly the right man for that.

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.

Really?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Jepsen:

Am 16. Juli 2010 trat sie von ihrem Amt als Bischöfin zurück,[1] nachdem Der Spiegel am 10. Juli 2010 berichtet hatte, dass Maria Jepsen bereits 1999 über sexuelle Übergriffe eines Pastors aus Ahrensburg an Minderjährigen in ihrer Kirche informiert worden sei und nichts dagegen unternommen habe.[2][3]

In English: she resigned after Der Spiegel had reported she had failed to do anything about a sexually abusing priest. It helps if your story checks out.

 

[Verklagekasper]

Seems odd that an organisation which claims to be The Moral Authority needs to be shamed into doing the right thing. Doesn't it?

Not odd at all. It even happens to secular movements which claim moral and intellectual superiority to religious orginisations. The keyword being "sexual harassment".

 

[Verklagekasper]

No you haven't addressed that. You have said yourself that the church trial must be kept a secret - not only the contents of the trial, but also the very fact that there is a trial.

Then, reporting to the police is impossible:

Which is a non-sequitur, no matter how often you repeat it.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramentorum_sanctitatis_tutela

Translation:

On 18 May 2001, [Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela] was followed by the letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine Ad Exsequendam or De delictis gravioribus to inform all ruling bishops and ordinaries of all rites within the Catholic Church about the new standards for the protection of the sacraments. This inner-Catholic tightening of laws thus is not a "secret letter" or "secret document". This canonical order has to be strictly distinguished from the corresponding reporting to the public prosecutor, which is neither affected nor hindered by the old standards of Crimen Sollicitationis nor by the new standards on the basis of the Motu Proprio "Sacramentorum Sanctitatis tutela", except for everything which falls under the seal of confession. The Vatican guideline provides that national duty of disclosure laws are followed, and not only after a canonical trial.

 

[tsig]

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.

You're saying that the church should negotiate with governments as to which laws they will follow?

Benefit of clergy went out with the Middle Ages.

 

[Verklagekasper]

You're saying that the church should negotiate with governments as to which laws they will follow?

No. I'm saying that a world-wide "report every crime to state-auhtorities"-policy would be hazardous in states whose rulers are criminals themselves.

 

[Brainache]

Not odd at all. It even happens to secular movements which claim moral and intellectual superiority to religious orginisations. The keyword being "sexual harassment".

Are you saying that "sexual harassment" in the Atheist movement is a problem equivalent to the sexual abuse scandal in the RCC? Making Rebeccah Watson a bit uncomfortable by asking her for coffee in an elevator is the same as Priests raping little kids with impunity?

No you can't be saying that, you must be referring to a secular movement that shields rapists from prosecution and threatens victims with eternal damnation. Can you tell me which secular organisation does that?

 

[Myriad]

I'm planning a large convention and exhibition on physical education for school children, with the ex-Pope as Master of Ceremonies. It'll be called the EX-POPE PE EXPO.

 

[Brainache]

I'm planning a large convention and exhibition on physical education for school children, with the ex-Pope as Master of Ceremonies. It'll be called the EX-POPE PE EXPO.

OK, I'll be there, but only if you allow Latin American Livestock, see I've got this OX, PEPE...

 

[SezMe]

Can you tell me which secular organisation does that?

I can hardly wait for the answer.

 

[SezMe]

Arresting and trying the ex-Pope would be a waste of time and effort. The inquiry would take years. The Pope simply has to cite his reasoning for retiring and state that he is incompetent to stand trial. Or he could make it even simpler and tip over.

 

[Verklagekasper]

Are you saying that "sexual harassment" in the Atheist movement is a problem equivalent to the sexual abuse scandal in the RCC? Making Rebeccah Watson a bit uncomfortable by asking her for coffee in an elevator is the same as Priests raping little kids with impunity?

No you can't be saying that, you must be referring to a secular movement that shields rapists from prosecution and threatens victims with eternal damnation. Can you tell me which secular organisation does that?

Mocking about sexual harassment reports isn't exactly the best response to prove one's moral superiority.

There have been reports on sexual harassment on conventions involving sexist remarks, groping, forced tongue-kisses.

You have just swept these under the carpet, haven't you?

You're in the exact mode of denial that you're accusing church officials of, aren't you?

 

[SezMe]

You're in the exact mode of denial that you're accusing church officials of, aren't you?

Speaking of denial, here is exactly the question your were asked and completely avoided.

Can you tell me which secular organisation does that?

Care to respond?

 

[Verklagekasper]

Care to respond?

To the silly "Have you stopped beating your wife?"-question falsely implying that the church would protect rapists and threaten victims? No.

On the other hand, it's mildly interesting that Brainache chose "shielding rapists from prosecution" and "threatening victims with eternal damnation" as criterion for immoral behavior. He gives secular movements a free pass regarding sexual assaults by definition, because they don't threaten with "eternal damnation". Besides, he seems afraid that secular movements would not pass if the bar was lowered a bit. That uneasiness might be justified. How about examining statistics on sexual abuse in secular schools and how openly secular school officials deal with that?

 

[Verklagekasper]

Now that's weird. Statistics on sexual abuse in secular organisations don't seem to exist. This is all I found:

News stories frequently note similar cases involving members of a wide range of professions, not just clergy of all denominations but also scoutmasters and secular schoolteachers. So how do their rates of abuse compare with those of priests? We have precisely no evidence on the issue.

No reputable scholar has ever conducted a survey of the abuse problem as it affects any other profession, in a way that would allow us to make direct comparisons with the Catholic clergy. If anyone believes that priests offend at a higher rate than teachers or non-celibate clergy, then they should produce the evidence on which they are basing that conclusion. I know of none. Saying "everybody knows" does not constitute scientific methodology.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-06-07-column07_ST_N.htm

And the church is blamed for secrecy and covering things up?
Carefully read the USA-Today article. THAT'S applied skepticism.

 

[catsmate]

I'm unsure of your point. I distinguished diplomatic immunity from the courtesies one sovreign routinely extends to another, and the holders of such travel documents from "diplomats."

Yes, that's part of being sovreign. We seem to be in agreement about that, too.

So, add to that the inherent implausibility of any jurisdiction he'd want to visit ever trying to arrest him in the first place, and we have a guy who's probably not going to do hard time soon.

One he ceases to be pope his ceases to enjoy sovereign immunity. A diplomatic (or official) passport would only protect him with the consent of the visited state.

If an EAW is issued against Ratzinger the Italian authorities would be obliged to arrest him if he left the Holy See.

There's more than enough to support an American indictment for conspiracy. It won't happen, but not for lack of something sufficient. The standard just isn't that demanding, but there isn't the political will to pursue criminal charges aginst others of rank, who would be even easier to prosecute successfully.

I could see an ambitious USAian lawyer trying. In Europe there could be a prosecution launched in certain countries, however that would require evidence directly implicating Ratzinger.

 

[Brainache]

Mocking about sexual harassment reports isn't exactly the best response to prove one's moral superiority.

What sexual harassment reports are you talking about? I don't know of any, except Rebeccah and the polite guy in the elevator.

There have been reports on sexual harassment on conventions involving sexist remarks, groping, forced tongue-kisses.

You have just swept these under the carpet, haven't you?

I am unaware of these reports, can you cite them here to help me in my ignorance?

You're in the exact mode of denial that you're accusing church officials of, aren't you?

I don't think so. I haven't taken a known Child Rapist and moved them from one country to another to avoid prosecution. Do you really think that that is what I'm doing by discussing this with you?

To the silly "Have you stopped beating your wife?"-question falsely implying that the church would protect rapists and threaten victims? No.

It is not a "false implication", it is a direct accusation based on the testimony of victims of the Church's abuse.

On the other hand, it's mildly interesting that Brainache chose "shielding rapists from prosecution" and "threatening victims with eternal damnation" as criterion for immoral behavior. He gives secular movements a free pass regarding sexual assaults by definition, because they don't threaten with "eternal damnation". Besides, he seems afraid that secular movements would not pass if the bar was lowered a bit. That uneasiness might be justified. How about examining statistics on sexual abuse in secular schools and how openly secular school officials deal with that?

You are not a mind reader. I was talking about things the RCC has done, not secular organisations. If you can find examples of secular organisations behaving in a similar way to the RCC in this matter, I recommend you contact the Police.

Now that's weird. Statistics on sexual abuse in secular organisations don't seem to exist. This is all I found:

News stories frequently note similar cases involving members of a wide range of professions, not just clergy of all denominations but also scoutmasters and secular schoolteachers. So how do their rates of abuse compare with those of priests? We have precisely no evidence on the issue.

No reputable scholar has ever conducted a survey of the abuse problem as it affects any other profession, in a way that would allow us to make direct comparisons with the Catholic clergy. If anyone believes that priests offend at a higher rate than teachers or non-celibate clergy, then they should produce the evidence on which they are basing that conclusion. I know of none. Saying "everybody knows" does not constitute scientific methodology.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-06-07-column07_ST_N.htm

Odd that. You'd think that child RAPE was something that happens everywhere, but it seems that people only care when Priests do it...

And the church is blamed for secrecy and covering things up?
Carefully read the USA-Today article. THAT'S applied skepticism.

There is no evidence, therefore it's a cover-up, is not "applied skepticism", it is the useless mantra of conspiracy nuts and UFO believers. Good luck with that.

 

[ddt]

Which is a non-sequitur, no matter how often you repeat it.

I don't think you understand what a non-sequitur is.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramentorum_sanctitatis_tutela

Let's see the text of the law on the Vatican website:

Art. 30
§ 1. Cases of this nature are subject to the pontifical secret.[41]
§ 2. Whoever has violated the secret, whether deliberately (ex dolo) or through grave negligence, and has caused some harm to the accused or to the witnesses, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty by the higher turnus at the insistence of the injured party or even ex officio.

So whoever divulges anything about the church trial, violates the pontifical secret, and is in his turn the subject of a new church trial. According to your own statements, "divulging anything about the trial" includes divulging the mere existence of a trial and/or just naming the accused.

Keeping that all secret, and at the same time saying that a church trial must be started as soon as suspicions of child sexual abuse are known, is incompatible with reporting to the police, as then the suspicions and the name of the accused become publicly known.

Translation:

On 18 May 2001, [Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela] was followed by the letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine Ad Exsequendam or De delictis gravioribus to inform all ruling bishops and ordinaries of all rites within the Catholic Church about the new standards for the protection of the sacraments. This inner-Catholic tightening of laws thus is not a "secret letter" or "secret document". This canonical order has to be strictly distinguished from the corresponding reporting to the public prosecutor, which is neither affected nor hindered by the old standards of Crimen Sollicitationis nor by the new standards on the basis of the Motu Proprio "Sacramentorum Sanctitatis tutela", except for everything which falls under the seal of confession. The Vatican guideline provides that national duty of disclosure laws are followed, and not only after a canonical trial.

So you can cite from those Vatican guidelines? And provide a link to the Vatican website?

And what about your claim that Augsburger bishop Mixa reported a molesting priest? Link please. Thus far I've only seen (from my own links) that Mixa himself was accused of molest, as well as of beating children, and of fraud. And after that got promoted to a post at the Vatican.

And what about Lutheran bishop Jepsen? You claimed the press didn't give a peep. Then I showed that Der Spiegel wrote about her mishandling of an abuse case, and within a week she resigned. Did you miss all that or did you forget about it?

 

[Brainache]

Are there any leagle eagles here who would like to comment on this idea of prosecuting the Pope for crimes against Humanity?