It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Lawyers for Pope Benedict have asked President George W. Bush to declare the pontiff immune from liability in a lawsuit that accuses him of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys by a seminarian in Texas, court records show.
The Vatican's embassy in Washington sent a diplomatic memo to the State Department on May 20 requesting the U.S. government grant the Pope immunity because he is a head of state, according to a May 26 motion submitted by the Pope's lawyers in U.S. District Court for the Southern Division of Texas in Houston.
Joseph Ratzinger is named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit. Now Pope Benedict, he's accused of conspiring with the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston to cover up the abuse during the mid-1990s. The suit is seeking unspecified monetary damages.
Originally posted by djohnsto77
The Pope is the head of a sovereign state and gets automatic immunity from any legal action by any United States Court. This is just grandstanding on both sides.
Originally posted by djohnsto77
The Pope is the head of a sovereign state and gets automatic immunity from any legal action by any United States Court.
This is just grandstanding on both sides.
I don't understand how the current pope can be named in the suit since he has only been in charge for a few months
Originally posted by Crazy Chemist
I would think that ultimately this is similar to suing an auto company because you were injured in a car crash. If someone is driving the car incorretly, you shouldn't be able to just sue the automaker (although I know that this happens on occasion).
In a similar fashion I don't think you can hold the pope accountable for sins committed by his bishops - unless you can prove that he had knowledge of what was occurring. It is not clear to me that the pope did know what was happening, because he was never informed of it. Therefore, he can't be held liable for what has happened.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.
The 69page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.
They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'
The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.
It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'.
Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.
Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.
In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Gerry Keener, said Tuesday that the pope already is considered a head of state and automatically has diplomatic immunity. Keener said Benedict doesn't have to ask for immunity and Bush doesn't have to grant it.
No it would be like sueing a bus company because they haven't fired a known alchaholic, known he's driven under the influence before and covered up passed crashes he's caused before.
Originally posted by riley
[No it would be like sueing a bus company because they haven't fired a known alchaholic, known he's driven under the influence before and covered up passed crashes he's caused before.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.
The 69page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication...
Originally posted by Crazy Chemist
I guess we'll have to disagree about the analogy then. I still find it difficult to believe that the pope was well aware of what was going on in the states.
If this documet were true, don't you think the press would be having a field day with it?
With regards to the link that was provided, it also mentions that this document isn't the smoking gun evidence to say there was a purposeful cover up. That this document be construed as such proof is a big if.
...but the truth is more powerful than any man made corporation.. IMO if it can't survive it it deserves to be destroyed.
Originally posted by riley
He knows just as the late pope did.. and so used to covering things up it's no surprise he's now trying to cover his own arse.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Originally posted by riley
He knows just as the late pope did.. and so used to covering things up it's no surprise he's now trying to cover his own arse.
I do not believe that John Paul II was involved in, or even knew of, the
scandal. I don't believe his handlers told him and even if he caught
wind of it, I doubt it was able to be processed in his mind due to his own
poor health.