Britain Might Just Be Arresting the Leader of a Faith 1 Billion Strong
Well. This is interesting. And it all stems from Pope Benedict's time as the head of the Archdiocese in Germany.
You see, Pope Benedict XVI was Archdiocese in Germany around the time that major abuse claims, both sexually and physically, were being made. There is evidence that the Pope, as Archdiocese Joseph Ratzinger, quietly ignored or covered up the abuse allegations.
Now this is in line with a long held line of action in the Catholic Church. Whether or not that has happened is not up for debate. There are numerous cases in which bishops, priests, even cardinals have been implicated in child abuse cases and the Church simply moves along with their day. This thread is not about "Is the Catholic Church right in their behavior towards these accused child abusers?" So don't get all morally righteous on me or the Catholic Church. Just keep paying attention.
The evidence of a cover up is there. What is in question is if Pope Benedict is responsible, and if the act of covering up all of these abuse claims institutes a crime grave enough to be a "crime against humanity."
For you see, the lawyers in England are thinking about using an International Law that allows Judges to practice "Universal Jurisdiction" when confronted with a criminal that has committed crimes against humanity. This is based off of the idea that some crimes like genocide are so atrocious that they should be taken care of no matter where the crime was committed.
Basically, a man who commits genocide in Rwanda shouldn't be able to hide out in Britain simply because British judges have no jurisdiction in Rwanda.
The lawyers claim that such a widespread cover up operation is a direct crime against humanity, simply because of the sheer amount of child abuse cases that were hidden from the public and forced into secrecy.
On top of all of this, the question lies in if the Pope, when he was Archdiocese Joseph Ratzinger, is responsible for reporting priests who are implicit in child abuse cases. That question isn't even answered yet. The Vatican holds a firm position of "NO." On this issue. Some consider the very question itself to be an insult on par with the worst Anti-Semitism. I don't see why, but I'm sure they have their reasons.
Before any one says anything, the British courts have a history of fucking over the British Government if they deem to the Law to read so (as I believe it should be in the United States, instead of some kind of political maneuver.). So the political implications of arresting the Pope mean nothing to the Judges when hearing the arguments made by lawyers on this case. No "But the British Government won't allow it!" It doesn't matter what the British Government allows. If a judge issues an arrest warrant, he's issued an arrest warrant.
There is also another issue in this very intricate issue. The Pope currently holds immunity as a foreign head of state. Diplomatic immunity, as it were. As that is, lawyers in Britain are evaluating if someone from the Vatican should even be offered diplomatic immunity. The most basic argument is that the Vatican isn't a true state, while others argue that the Vatican holds relations with over 170 countries, including Great Britain. It is also the only non-member offered permanent observer status in the U.N (no vote, but can see what's going on.)
This thread is many fold.
1) Is Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Archdiocese Joseph Ratzinger in Germany, responsible for reporting and/or punishing priests reported to him as having been implicit in Child Abuse cases?
2) Is the cover up of child abuse cases bad enough to be considered a "Crime Against Humanity," on par with genocide?
3) Should Britain really arrest the Pope on charges of "Crimes Against Humanity?"
4) Is the Pope, or any diplomat from the Vatican, really a diplomat at all? Should they be awarded diplomatic immunity?
I personally view the issue as so intricate that I couldn't possibly start to take a stance, other than the fact that questioning the Pope's immunity is silly. He's the head of the Vatican, which is accepted as a state by many countries around the world. But I know you people here will have some wonderfully eloquent stances to say the least.
Stake your claim.
Well. This is interesting. And it all stems from Pope Benedict's time as the head of the Archdiocese in Germany.
You see, Pope Benedict XVI was Archdiocese in Germany around the time that major abuse claims, both sexually and physically, were being made. There is evidence that the Pope, as Archdiocese Joseph Ratzinger, quietly ignored or covered up the abuse allegations.
Now this is in line with a long held line of action in the Catholic Church. Whether or not that has happened is not up for debate. There are numerous cases in which bishops, priests, even cardinals have been implicated in child abuse cases and the Church simply moves along with their day. This thread is not about "Is the Catholic Church right in their behavior towards these accused child abusers?" So don't get all morally righteous on me or the Catholic Church. Just keep paying attention.
The evidence of a cover up is there. What is in question is if Pope Benedict is responsible, and if the act of covering up all of these abuse claims institutes a crime grave enough to be a "crime against humanity."
For you see, the lawyers in England are thinking about using an International Law that allows Judges to practice "Universal Jurisdiction" when confronted with a criminal that has committed crimes against humanity. This is based off of the idea that some crimes like genocide are so atrocious that they should be taken care of no matter where the crime was committed.
Basically, a man who commits genocide in Rwanda shouldn't be able to hide out in Britain simply because British judges have no jurisdiction in Rwanda.
The lawyers claim that such a widespread cover up operation is a direct crime against humanity, simply because of the sheer amount of child abuse cases that were hidden from the public and forced into secrecy.
On top of all of this, the question lies in if the Pope, when he was Archdiocese Joseph Ratzinger, is responsible for reporting priests who are implicit in child abuse cases. That question isn't even answered yet. The Vatican holds a firm position of "NO." On this issue. Some consider the very question itself to be an insult on par with the worst Anti-Semitism. I don't see why, but I'm sure they have their reasons.
Before any one says anything, the British courts have a history of fucking over the British Government if they deem to the Law to read so (as I believe it should be in the United States, instead of some kind of political maneuver.). So the political implications of arresting the Pope mean nothing to the Judges when hearing the arguments made by lawyers on this case. No "But the British Government won't allow it!" It doesn't matter what the British Government allows. If a judge issues an arrest warrant, he's issued an arrest warrant.
There is also another issue in this very intricate issue. The Pope currently holds immunity as a foreign head of state. Diplomatic immunity, as it were. As that is, lawyers in Britain are evaluating if someone from the Vatican should even be offered diplomatic immunity. The most basic argument is that the Vatican isn't a true state, while others argue that the Vatican holds relations with over 170 countries, including Great Britain. It is also the only non-member offered permanent observer status in the U.N (no vote, but can see what's going on.)
This thread is many fold.
1) Is Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Archdiocese Joseph Ratzinger in Germany, responsible for reporting and/or punishing priests reported to him as having been implicit in Child Abuse cases?
2) Is the cover up of child abuse cases bad enough to be considered a "Crime Against Humanity," on par with genocide?
3) Should Britain really arrest the Pope on charges of "Crimes Against Humanity?"
4) Is the Pope, or any diplomat from the Vatican, really a diplomat at all? Should they be awarded diplomatic immunity?
I personally view the issue as so intricate that I couldn't possibly start to take a stance, other than the fact that questioning the Pope's immunity is silly. He's the head of the Vatican, which is accepted as a state by many countries around the world. But I know you people here will have some wonderfully eloquent stances to say the least.
Stake your claim.
