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.

 

Obama administration backs Vatican in pedophile case

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Obama administration backs Vatican in pedophile case


www.breitbart.com

The Obama administration in a brief to the Supreme Court has backed the Vatican's claim of immunity from lawsuits arising from cases of sexual abuse by priests in the United States.
The Supreme Court is considering an appeal by the Vatican of an appellate court ruling that lifted its immunity in the case of an alleged pedophile priest from Oregon.

In a filing on Friday, the solicitor general's office argued that the Ninth Circuit court of appeals erred in allowing the lawsuit brought by a man who claims he was sexually abused in the 1960s by the Oregon priest.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
This is kind of a shocking free pass from this administration and a huge blow to the victims of rape from members of the Catholic Church. The claim from the administration is that the Vatican receive immunity granted under the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. We'll have to see whether the courts grant this petition or not.

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


What makes me sick is thinking about the fact that the Vatican still really does rule the world as far as administrations go. They should be tried under the same law that normal sex offenders are.

This sets a very dangerous precedent as far as these cases go. To grant immunity from lawsuit or otherwise, is, like you said, a free pass for kiddie diddlers. Now, if there was already an existing statute of limitations put forth in these types of cases, I wouldn't be so inclined to get steamed up about this.

Here is the law: en.wikipedia.org...


The FSIA is primarily a jurisdictional statute. For the most part, it indicates what conditions must be met in order for a lawsuit against a foreign state to be instituted, not what conduct by a foreign sovereign is actionable. If a foreign defendant qualifies as a "Foreign State" under the FSIA, the Act provides that it shall be immune to suit in any U.S. Court—federal or state—unless a statutory exception to immunity applies. The applicability of an exception to immunity is a matter of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning if there is no exception to immunity, a court cannot hear the claim and must dismiss the suit.


A snippet of the actual law, bold is mine.

It would seem to me that child molestation cases would be an exception to immunity from lawsuit in a US Court of Law, and it represents a rather heinous crime and a huge breach of trust. Whether or not the Vatican will actually be able to be sued by this is a different case altogether, and I'm not so sure about the statute of limitations on such cases.

Something to think about anyway.

Thanks for the link TD.




Peace be with you.

-truthseeker



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker1984

It would seem to me that child molestation cases would be an exception to immunity from lawsuit in a US Court of Law, and it represents a rather heinous crime and a huge breach of trust.


I agree wholeheartedly and I can't really understand why they'd petition the courts for immunity. My conspiratorial mind at work asks the question as to whether this may be a form of pandering for the Catholic vote? That would be an unfounded accusation I suppose but there has to be more to this behind the scenes.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



My conspiratorial mind at work asks the question as to whether this may be a form of pandering for the Catholic vote?


Or it's a form of the US paying homage to its true masters. My conspiracy alarm is going on overdrive because of this case. I really hope that something can be done about this, because it's sick that the Vatican will still not take full responsibility for its clergy out there in the world.


Peace be with you.

-truthseeker



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
very sad news.. I personaly do not think the Vatican should get said immunity in such cases.

I really will not be suprised if the Pope does not get someone/group try to arrest him when (or if) he comes to Britian..



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


This is disgusting, granting child molesters in the Catholic Church some sort of dimplomatic immunity? Most of these American Priests are American citizens and need to be held accountable to the law of the land. Benedict was well aware of this plague within the church, he oversaw the Vatican commission that investigated and transferred many priests around the world for such behavior, that constitutes aiding and abetting in my mind.

Its interesting though, the hypocrisy:


The Vatican plans to argue that Catholic dioceses are run as separate entities from the Holy See, and that the only authority that the pontiff has over bishops around the world is a religious one, according to Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican's US attorney.


So the Pope says that diocese can do whatever they want? Let's see how fast he'd change his tune if those churches decided to break away from the Vatican. Besides within the Catholic Church religious authority is supreme, isn't it?

Benedict, own up and take responsibility for the fact that your priests are your responsibility. What would that Jesus fellow of yours do in your shoes? I seem to recall the bible stating that he threw a fit for people profiteering in the church, imagine what he'd do if he caught wind of this.

Once again, I an utterly disgusted by the cowardice of this so "called servant of God" and his chicken hearted mockery of a religion.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I'm no lawyer, but from what I've learned, this is a reasonable legal course for the administration to take. Folks need to keep in mind that the law needs to be argued on the point of the law, not on what someone wishes the law to be. The administration should be supporting the LAW here and if that cuts the Church a break, it cuts the Church a break.

That does not mean that the administration should not have a public position on the matter. They should be out hammering the Church. Politics aside, they could push a RICO case against the church for running a criminal conspiracy. Those are entirely different laws and it is not consistent to support different laws and have different outcomes - its the nature of the law

On this point though, you want the administration supporting the law and if that benefits the church, that is a by-product. I'm more interested in support of the law than I am anything that happens with the church.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


You have an excellent point. The laws are there for a reason, and if the Vatican gets off on some technicality, well, that's how the law works. It still doesn't mean I agree with what is going on, and a RICO case against the church (considering all the evidence of transferring known Priest Child Molesters around the world to cover up the crimes) would be a perfect thing to do. Would it stand up? I should hope so. It was publicly known that Benedict was doing this. Maybe it's time for the Vatican to give up its control of the world and realize that they are no better than any of the rest of us here on planet Earth.


Peace be with you.

-truthseeker



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I can't wait to see the judge throw-out the case in favor of the Vatican.

It happens all the time, the judges are in the Vatican's back-pocket along with the Lawyers. It is not just the Vatican whom just bribes judges. There are also rules and code.

Like judges can not have a conflict of interest. The judge likely serves the Vatican in more then one form. So the judge gets his money from the Vatican, he wont be sending the Vatican into spiraling death, or the pope for that matter.

I see this as horrible, but just another thing the court system lets go, because the court system was established by the Vatican and the Illuminati. They control about every court system around the world, WHY?!

I'll tell you why, because money controls the Law and they control the creation of the money. The Vatican doesn't create money, it has tons of gold stored, and I am sure it receives enough paper money from Tithes.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Quickfix]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
On this point though, you want the administration supporting the law and if that benefits the church, that is a by-product. I'm more interested in support of the law than I am anything that happens with the church.


I would have to agree with you there. However, there exists a hazy ground between two laws: that of the crime of running an organized child rape ring actively covered up by the Vatican and the 1976 federal act declaring diplomatic immunity for foreign countries. Presumably under this petition under this act, a precedent could be set that any other nation may set up an organized child rape operation within our borders and effectively escape prosecution. Somehow this seems to be more in violation of our laws than operating in compliance with them.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
typical. do you smoke pot or cheat on your taxes??? stop criminal scum!!!

do you molest little kids while claiming righteousness???? A-OKAY!!!



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I would rephrase your "members of the catholic church" part. I am a "member of the catholic church", I've never raped or molested anyone. You also have to remember not all priests are pedophiles. Many of them publicly slander priests that are since they make the good ones lives much harder. I'm sure my priest (who is a good man and not a pedophile) would like to take kids on a field trip without an amber alert being issued.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I would rephrase your "members of the catholic church" part. I am a "member of the catholic church", I've never raped or molested anyone. You also have to remember not all priests are pedophiles. Many of them publicly slander priests that are since they make the good ones lives much harder. I'm sure my priest (who is a good man and not a pedophile) would like to take kids on a field trip without an amber alert being issued.


That is a fair point: I could have phrased that better.

Also, in no way am I implying that ALL priests are pedophiles. My comments are strictly reserved for those who have participated in and/or have concealed crimes.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
The Roman Catholic Church can do no wrong. Everything they do is in the name of "God." I hope that you know I'm being a bit sarcastic here.

Satanism in the Vatican


"The devil in the Catholic Church is so protected now that he is like an animal protected by the government; put on a game preserve that outlaws anyone, especially hunters, from trying to capture or kill it. The devil within the Church today is actually protected by certain Church authorities from the official devil-hunter in the Church -- the exorcist. ... To the question, 'Are there men of the curia who are followers of Satan?' Milingo responded, 'Certainly there are priests and bishops. I stop at this level of ecclesiastical hierarchy because I am an archbishop, higher than this I cannot go.' Milingo cited papal statements to back up his charges. 'Paul VI said that the smoke of Satan had entered into the Vatican." -- Archbishop Milingo

In reality, the Catholic Church holds the Pope in such a high reverence, that some would claim him to be "God." Bowing down to a man? That's absurd at it's best.

Galileo vs the Catholic Church


In 1992 Pope John Paul II officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary - it revolved around the sun - but was this the end of the story??

With the above now being said, the "Church" forgave Galileo for heresy in the 17th century. How can someone forgive someone when that person didn't do anything wrong to begin with. It was the "Church" who committed crimes and they're the ones who need to plea for forgiveness, not the other way around.

Godsview



MATTHEW 18
6 But whoso shall offend one of these LITTLE ONES which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Of anyone believes in the Holy Bible here, then you'll know that man's punishment is incomparable to God's punishment. Man must be punished for his sins either in this life or the next. I'd rather it be in this life, because it will end one day. We can ask for forgiveness here but we must pay for any crimes that we've committed by due process of the law. After we leave here, it'll be just too late. Don't flame me for my views. I'm going to die one day and so will you. The only difference will be that I'll be happy when I'm gone from this God forsaken planet.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I can't help but think about Proto's thread "All roads lead to Rome" when reading this.

Absolutely ridiculous.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Having read the posts and given this thought about this here is what I can come up with and the reasoning why:
The court and the Obama Adminstration is correct in its decision, you can not sue the Vatican or the pope, as the Pope does have diplomatic immunity. Now before you flame me for this, hear me out. It is shameful that a priest would abuse a child and such needs to stop, however, the Vatican is correct that the different diocese and churches are individuals to their own part in each city and country. If you want, think of a real estate or insurance agent that works for one of the larger coperations, like Remax or Century 21. The agents are independent, but pay a portion of their fees to the parent company. Each of the Catholic churches and parishes and diocese, are like smaller versions of the Holy See, where the priests are controled by the bishops, arch bishops and Cardinals in the area. The idea of diplomatic immunity is there to protect leaders and delagates from abuses by foriegn governments. If that door is opened up, then there is nothing stopping a nation or a country from going to another country and launching its own lawsuit against any government it wants. Now if the victim in this case wants to refile, he would need to drop the Vaticain and the Pope from the lawsuit, and it should go through.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
First of all, as I have stated on countless threads on this same subject, criminals that have committed these heinous crimes need to be prosecuted and punished, and I am sure that God has a special place for them when their earthly punishment is up.

After reading through the posts I think two very important points with regard to this particular case have been neglected.

The first is the Vatican is a sovereign city state with all the rights afforded to it as any other country. When a crime is committed by a person, the victim does not have the right to sue the country from which that came or is a citizen.

Second, this particular case burns me up a bit. The victim only came forward 20 yrs AFTER the person he accusing died and 50 yrs after the alleged abuse occurred. I do not understand what justice he is seeking. This particular priest was also defrocked in the early 60's, so again why did he not charge the man with a crime or begin the investigation?

The victim also has never been identified, which as I understand it is normally standard procedure in sexual abuse cases. However, there have been quite a few very well publicized cases to the contrary. What or who exactly does a man in his mid 60's need protection from? His supposed attacker is deceased.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
However, there exists a hazy ground between two laws: that of the crime of running an organized child rape ring actively covered up by the Vatican and the 1976 federal act declaring diplomatic immunity for foreign countries.


Hmm. I wonder why Marc Emery didn't get 'diplomatic immunity" when what he was doing was LEGAL in his own country?

But, the Vatican, who did something ILLEGAL in all countries known (even theirs) gets immunity?

When did I wake up in Bizzaro world?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
It is shameful that a priest would abuse a child and such needs to stop, however, the Vatican is correct that the different diocese and churches are individuals to their own part in each city and country.


Fair enough. But we do know that the Vatican was not only aware of the abuses but was complicit in covering up the crimes and demanding silence from those aware of the crimes. This takes it out of the realm of the individual "branch offices" of the church and places it squarely in the Vatican.

Sadly, because of the immunity act they most likely will not be prosecuted but as I had said before, this could potentially set a precedent that could allow legalized organized child rape rings in America providing it's fronted by a head of a foreign state. Maybe. I'm no lawyer but it seems that's what it's pointing towards.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join