Pope named defendant in sex abuse lawsuit

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.

news.yahoo.com...


I havnt been following this, and I dont have much of anything to add, I just wanted to present this for discussion between others.

Related:

LA Times
Winnipeg Sun
Guardian

Ok, I just heard this on CNN right now and actually had to come find it on the net to verify that I actually did hear what I thought I heard. To my dismay I did in fact hear it correctly and am now even more disturbed by the whole idea.

Credit to Dulcimer for posting this. I'm kinda shocked to see that there were no responses to it as of yet.

So let me just throw in my own take on the situation if you don't mind.

Pope Lawyer Seek Immunity in Texas Case
www.latimes.com...
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.

IMO, this is already pretty bad. Requesting Immunity from the allegations and possible conviction from a case involving "conspiracy to cover up the molestation of three boys" within the Catholic Church. As long as some people are allowed to live and act outside or above the law, there is no such thing as Justice. But it gets even worse, keep reading...

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.

International legal experts said Tuesday it would be "virtually impossible" for the case to succeed because the pope, as a head of state, had diplomatic immunity. "There's really no question at all, not the vaguest legal doubt, that he's immune from the suit, period," said Paolo Carozza, an international law specialist at the University of Notre Dame Law School.

Oh joy!! So, as it turns out, such a request is totally pointless anyway since policy as it is already "Automatically Grants Immunity to any Head of State." Please read that again and think very hard about what that is saying.

What happened to, "No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. - Theodore Roosevelt" I guess that only goes for everyone else and not those "Gods" deamed "Head of State". I suppose we should be proud of a system which bestows upon it's Leaders the "Right" to Rape, Molest and Sexually Abuse Children without any worry of being held accountable for their actions???

I am so sick of this kind of B.S. and how abundant it is within the world today. I cannot imagine how anyone could possibly be so blind and lost as to follow such an "Un-Holy" man. Everyday millions complain endlessly about "Saving The Children" and "Protection from the Sex Offenders" while at the same time many of those same people worship the "GrandMaster" of all pedifiles. I really must say that such a wise policy really does leave one in awe at the so called accomplishments of Mankind and our Superior Minds.

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.

That may be so, but I think it hits the Pope and the church in an area that goes beyond meer monitary issues: The moral highground. Lose that and they will have big trouble.

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.

Right. I think we've pretty much covered that part already. So other than stating the obvious for a 3rd time, was there a point behind this???

I mean, are you saying you think that is a good thing and if so why??? A bad thing and why??? Or perhaps were you just pointing out how cool it would be to be head of state so you could go commit crime and get away with it every time???

This is just grandstanding on both sides.

Once again, I fail to see what it is that you're getting at. What sides are you talking about also??? Good vs. Evil, Left vs. Right, Religious vs. Non-Religious, Criminal vs. Victim, Prosecution vs. Defence, or what??? Not that I really care since I don't see any "sides" in this issue. All I see is a Law that establishes any Head of State being allowed to commit all sorts of criminal activities without being held responsible. I can't imagine a more obvious double standard in our so called Justice System or one with a more dangerous set of results.

(P.S. If you know of a worse one, please hold it back for now so as not to cloud the current issue at hand. We'll get to the others later.)

I'm saying it's grandstanding because on one side the Pope wants special recognition by the President to excuse him from any litigation while on the other side they are suing with no hope of winning just to make a point.

I'm not really taking any side here, simply pointing out that the United States recognizes the Vatican as a sovereign state and therefore grants diplomatic immunity to its head of state....

What are you getting at by trying to attack me for making statements of fact?

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. He wasn't in charge in the 90's. Also, Rome often wasn't informed by bishops in the US about what was going on. People should be punished for crimes they have committed.

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

AS Pope he is untouchable, a head of state. If however at the time of the
incident in question he was a Cardinal with juristiction over the area in question
that changes the picture. He was not then a head of state, however he was
still a duly appointed representative of a foreign government, just the same
as an ambassador from any other country.

perhaps that is the key, while priests are representatives of a foreign govt.
they may be immune from prosecution as any other foreing representative is.
But there is one action that can be undertaken and should be DEPORTATION.
when involved in illegal activities deport them to Vatican City.

how can you deport them to Rome if they are not citizens? Prior to be come pope, I don't know if Cardnial Ratzinger had jurisdiction over the bishops here. 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.

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).

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.

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.

Not liable? I guess they tried to insure themselves:

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'.

Never informed?:

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.

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.
www.freidenker.at...

[edit on 17-8-2005 by riley]

Could this be an anticipated opportunity for the NWO to strike and arrest the conflicting illuminati leader, who happen to both share the same common goal of world domination?

What will the reptilians think? Time will tell...

[edit on 17-8-2005 by syntaxer]

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.

Done deal, he is head of state of Vatican City, check and mate.
He's immune...

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.

an excellent simile and example....

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.

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.

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...

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.

Be all that as it may, I'm not trying to condone certain behavior. All those guilty of criminal acts and their coverup should be punished. I just don't think one can make a link between the popes and the abuse here in the US.

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.

Well THIS one most certainly was.. and the last one admitted some liabilty.. as well as publically apologising. The naivity of die hard followers is why the church won't be held accountable for it's own corruption. Their loyalty is assured no matter what. Kind of like MJ fans.

If this documet were true, don't you think the press would be having a field day with it?

They did. If this document weren't true.. why did it have the pope's seal? Why did they vatican try 'explain it away'.. and why is the present pope desperately trying to 'be sure' he's got immunity from this incriminating evidence? These things happened before he became pope.. I think these litigations began beforehand so perhaps the immunity might not apply as he was not head of state then.. or maybe if he's found guilty the church might strip him of his position [even though he's head of it] and he won't have that protection anymore.
On the flip side.. maybe thats why they made him pope.. to protect him with the 'head of state' immunity because of this leaked document. There were much better choices out there.

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.

That is the Vatican's assertion. When it comes to catching criminals in the act.. they rarely confess complete guilt if it means they are going to go to jail for the rest of their lives. In this case it could destroy the church itself so there's alot more riding on it.. but the truth is more powerful than any man made corporation.. IMO if it can't survive it it deserves to be destroyed.

[edit on 18-8-2005 by riley]

...but the truth is more powerful than any man made corporation.. IMO if it can't survive it it deserves to be destroyed.

agreed

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.

Also, PJPII was a young priest during the Nazi years. One of the
favorite things the Nazi's did was to falsely call someone a homosexual
and then to proceed to ruin their lives. So prior to PJPII having his
health fail, he was disenclined to believe people when they 'accused'
others of being homosexuals. THis is what the Nazi's did to control
things and so PJPII naturally didn't believe when people threw around
the word 'homosexual' (at least this is what people who knew him said).

On the other hand, Ratzinger was fully in charge of his faculties. He
definately knew the seriousness of the situation. The cover up probably
didn't get the 'okay nod' all the way up to Ratzinger's level. It would
have been handled by the local bishops... perhaps the local Cardinals
would have known as well, but Ratzinger most likely wouldn't have
known about every single situation. There were too many of them and
he wouldn't have been micro-managing it from that high up.

It was just a matter of time before someone took the law suits all the
way to the top. I have to say ... when I saw that Rome wanted to be
garunteed not to be prosecuted I was shaking my head and very
disapointed.

This is going back five years? Interesting to see how this story has evolved and how much truth has come out since.

Anyway..

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.

I think he may have known but I now suspect the last ten years of his reign he was sinking into dementia and others were running the show telling him what to do and what to say. I am not saying he was innocent but he didn't seem very coherent towards the end.

I agree this current pope certainly knew exactly what he was doing and was fully aware of the immorality and illegalities of it. Let us hope he is not above the law. He is apparently investigating the "Legion of Christ" group but I think that is to take the heat off himself.

Does anyone know if Ratzinger had anything to do with the skull and bones organization Bush was in? Asking him for immunity to avoid being sued was a pretty big favour.

Connecting all the dots.....



[edit on 12-4-2010 by riley]