Arrest the Pedo-helping Pope?

[michaelg]

If the Pope and the Catholic Church are to be indicted for anything, it should be for the untold misery they have inflicted on individuals and communities all over the world, rather than the rather isolated cases of child abuse. The former is an institutionalised policy, the latter is an embarrassing aberration the Church is trying to deal with (albeit in a rather dishonest way).

[kalniel]

If the Pope and the Catholic Church are to be indicted for anything, it should be for the untold misery they have inflicted on individuals and communities all over the world, rather than the rather isolated cases of child abuse. The former is an institutionalised policy, the latter is an embarrassing aberration the Church is trying to deal with (albeit in a rather dishonest way).

Please, the latter is a clear breach of law and needs to be addressed. What breaches of law have they done to cause 'untold misery they have inflicted on individuals and communities all over the world'? Where they have done so, the individuals should be prosecuted.

[G4Z]

If the Pope and the Catholic Church are to be indicted for anything, it should be for the untold misery they have inflicted on individuals and communities all over the world, rather than the rather isolated cases of child abuse. The former is an institutionalised policy, the latter is an embarrassing aberration the Church is trying to deal with (albeit in a rather dishonest way).

I quite agree, but then as has been said technically they haven't broken any laws. Its a bit like Al Capone being done on tax evasion rather than organised crime charges, I for one would be happy to see the church go down by any means so they can't continue with their destructive policies in Africa and elsewhere.

[Fraz]

What breaches of law have they done to cause 'untold misery they have inflicted on individuals and communities all over the world'?

Sadly telling people who don't know better that "AIDS can pass through condoms" and even "Condoms are laced with HIV", isn't against the law. That doesn't mean it's not unethical and causing the unnecessary death of millions.

[Georgy291]

am i THE ONLY one, who couldnt give a ****?

i mean, the whole church is just a massive exploit off peoples ignorance.....WHO CARES?

[G4Z]

am i THE ONLY one, who couldnt give a ****?

i mean, the whole church is just a massive exploit off peoples ignorance.....WHO CARES?

Well, probably people who give a **** about the world they live in and care about what happens to the most vulnerable people in this world. If you don't care then don't post, what the hell was the point of your post there?

[TheAnimus]

WHO CARES?

About 200 deaf choirboys been molested?

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

Well whilst I believe in small government, with little interference there are some things which HAVE to be stopped.

I also hope its not just me who has that belief.

[peterb]

Georgy291 and G4Z - I've already posted one warning about inflammatory posting in this thread - this is the last... Debate the subject by all means - but keep it reasoned and polite - and that includes starring and starred out words. OK?

[format]

[kalniel]

Sadly telling people who don't know better that "AIDS can pass through condoms" and even "Condoms are laced with HIV", isn't against the law. That doesn't mean it's not unethical and causing the unnecessary death of millions.

Are those official catholic church statements?

[G4Z]

Richard Dawkins just had this posted on the Guardian 20 mins ago :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cution-dawkins

[Lucio]

Richard Dawkins just had this posted on the Guardian 20 mins ago :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cution-dawkins

Unfortunately he still misses the point, the actual crime he's accusing the Pope of isn't a matter of UK jurisdiction, nor am I aware of any law that requires crime to be reported (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a legal expert).

That's the point people are missing in this debate, he's called for the arrest of a man who is not specifically guilty of a crime. The last thing the UK needs is more people being arrested or criminalised just for being associated with something condemed in society. After all, how many people supporting the arrest of the pope are also dead against the detention and torture of people in Guantanamo Bay?



Just as a side note, I personally don't like the views and beliefs of the Catholic Church, they're outdated and generally harmful to modern society, but I don't want to live in a world where beliefs are banned or people harressed for wanting to be part of something bigger.

[Fraz]

Are those official catholic church statements?

The "AIDS can pass through condoms" certainly is/was part of the official line: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

And the "Condoms laced with HIV/AIDS" is as reported in the same article, and was also stated by the head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7014335.stm

[TheAnimus]

That's the point people are missing in this debate, he's called for the arrest of a man who is not specifically guilty of a crime.

What part of been complicit in allowing someone to molest over 200 deaf vulnerable children do you not think is a crime.

Allowing someone who had tied up and forcefully violated an 11 year old boy, to carry on with their behaviour in a position of trust...

I just don't get how you don't think that is a crime? You can't seriously believe the children where 'asking for it' or even old enough to consent to such behaviour.

(it is, fyi in Germany, which we have agreements with over criminals in such serious matters)

[Saracen]

What part of been complicit in allowing someone to molest over 200 deaf vulnerable children do you not think is a crime.

Allowing someone who had tied up and forcefully violated an 11 year old boy, to carry on with their behaviour in a position of trust...

I just don't get how you don't think that is a crime? You can't seriously believe the children where 'asking for it' or even old enough to consent to such behaviour.

(it is, fyi in Germany, which we have agreements with over criminals in such serious matters)

Okay .... where in British law does it say that failure to report offences to the authorities is criminal?

I'll tell you. In most situations, it doesn't. The act that made misprision a criminal offence was repealed in 1967 and now, other than very specific situations under specific acts, it is not a criminal offence to fail to report. This specific circumstances include treason, some aspects of terrorism and those in authority (police, etc) failing to report criminal matters. But, by and large, it is not criminal to fail to report. It might be thoroughly reprehensible, and especially obnoxious in the case of child abuse, but generally, not criminal.

Next, what did Ratzinger actually do? He apparently, from my reading of letters, expressed concerns over the defrocking of priests reported as abusing kids, but was it his responsibility to report it, or was it the responsibility of the local church authority where the abuse was occurring, such as the priests in Germany, or the US, or wherever?

Note, I do not endorse what he apparently did (or didn't do), and I don't agree with him. But that isn't my point, my point is whether clear evidence of criminal activity exists, sufficient to arrest? Maybe it does, but so far, I'm not seeing it.

Next, we may have reciprocal arrangements with Germany, but if the alleged offence occurred in Germany,what does procedure require? The UK to initiate an arrest and deliver him to Germany to prosecute? Or Germany to produce the EU arrest warrant for us to execute? As I understand it, it's the latter. So have they?

Next, it's not just what laws are now, but what laws were when the offences occurred (and I mean whatever Ratzinger is accused of, not the actual abuse) and precisely what the treaties that establish EU arrest warrants stipulate. For instance, do those warrants cover crimes committed before the treaty?

Then, what is the exact status of the Vatican? I know some people have claimed it is not a state and therefore the Pope doesn't have diplomatic immunity, but it's a long way from people on a forum making that, based apparently on people in the media asserting that lawyers have said that that case could be made, to it actually being the situation.


Personally, I think the actions of the hierarchy of the catholic church are atrocious, rank hypocrisy and an utter and reprehensible disgrace. If it is possible to bring any of those those in authority and making decisions that resulted either in child abuse, or in failing to prevent child abuse that from continuing when it could have, to justice, then I'm all for it. If Ratzinger comes here and evidence to support a prosecution with a reasonable chance of conviction exists, and if diplomatic immunity doesn't apply, then he ought to be arrested and tried.

But I think that's a fairly large series of "if's".

His actions strike me as utterly disgusting. But it's yet to be established if they were actually criminal.

[peterb]

If the Pope and the Catholic Church are to be indicted for anything, it should be for the untold misery they have inflicted on individuals and communities all over the world, rather than the rather isolated cases of child abuse. The former is an institutionalised policy, the latter is an embarrassing aberration the Church is trying to deal with (albeit in a rather dishonest way).

A rather sweeping generalisation - and one could equally well argue that the Cathlic church (or its members) have relieved much misery in the world - Mother Theresa of Calcutta for example. However in any large organisation, there are thjose that seek to exert power over others, and in same cases abuse that power - however that should not detract from those in an organisation that do not. In the case of Catholocism, I would agree that some of its policies (including contraception) seem perverse and were I a cathoic, find very hard to defend.

Unfortunately he still misses the point, the actual crime he's accusing the Pope of isn't a matter of UK jurisdiction, nor am I aware of any law that requires crime to be reported (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a legal expert).

That's the point people are missing in this debate, he's called for the arrest of a man who is not specifically guilty of a crime. The last thing the UK needs is more people being arrested or criminalised just for being associated with something condemed in society. After all, how many people supporting the arrest of the pope are also dead against the detention and torture of people in Guantanamo Bay?

Just as a side note, I personally don't like the views and beliefs of the Catholic Church, they're outdated and generally harmful to modern society, but I don't want to live in a world where beliefs are banned or people harressed for wanting to be part of something bigger.

The alleged crimes of cover up occurred in an area outside UK jurisdiction (Eire) but Dorkins isn't specifically (if I read him correctly) calling for the UK to pursue the matter - it is a general call for Cardinal Ratzinger to be tried (as opposed to the office of Pope) for his role in failing to report a serious criminal offence. (Edit - but see Saracens post above)

What part of been complicit in allowing someone to molest over 200 deaf vulnerable children do you not think is a crime.

Allowing someone who had tied up and forcefully violated an 11 year old boy, to carry on with their behaviour in a position of trust...

I just don't get how you don't think that is a crime? You can't seriously believe the children where 'asking for it' or even old enough to consent to such behaviour.

(it is, fyi in Germany, which we have agreements with over criminals in such serious matters)

I don't know if there is a reciprocal arrangement with Italy (or the Vatican State - however that is defined). The EU arrest warrant (which I think is a dangerous instrument in itself - but thats another matter) may not apply in this case.

Certainly there are questions to be answered by the Church, whether a criminal trial will happen is doubtful - but Dorkins has certainly raised the profile, and if that causes the Church to reform and make its processes more open, that in itself would (IMHO) be a good thing.

Edit - I started writing this before Saracen posted above. As usual he has made the point far more succintly than I and shown some of my assertions (about failing to report) to be false.