Pope immune from abuse lawsuit

[emad]

Pope immune from abuse lawsuit
20/09/2005 13:44 - (SA)



Rome - The United States government has told a Texas court that Pope Benedict XVI should be given immunity from a lawsuit accusing him of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian, court documents show.

Assistant attorney general Peter Keisler said in Monday's filing that, as pope, Benedict enjoys immunity as the head of a state - the Vatican. He said allowing the lawsuit to proceed would be "incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests".


http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1773602,00.html

[Poll_Blind]

1. Wait, immune as head of state- like Saddam was head of state?

Puleeeeze!

PB

[emad]

2. Except that the Vatican is NOT recognised as a sovereign state

by the UN - which only accords it observer status.

The Vatican is a theocratic dictatorship unjaccountable to no one.

Least of all any law enforcement agencies wanting to bust it for the rape and torture of children.

[Kagemusha]

9. It is by the US, and Texas is still part of the US.

And that's what matters.

[emad]

31. NO. In the UN the USA has repeatedly denied the Vatican full

sovereign state status and conceded observer status only.

During Ronnie Raygun's reigns there were four attempts by the Vatican to gain full accredition at the UN including two attempts to get a full seat on the Security Council.

Each attempt failed: the first was the most spectacular becasue it co-incided with the collapse of Banco Ambrosiano and the death of 'od's Banker' Roberto Calvi.

Bush1 as VP gave Cardinal Marcinkus immunity from prosecution over the scam in return for the Vatican downplaying its assault on the UK for full recognition.

But that never came as only Italy accredits the Vatican with any sovereignity - chiefly because it sits on its turf.

[0007]

36. Thank you very kindly. I think that one needs to go and chew on

some more sea weed.

[emad]

38. You back on the sea weed again 0007?

Wondered where you'd been!

[UDenver20]

41. Actually...

I believe you are trying to say that they are ACCOUNTABLE to NO ONE, not that they are UNACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE.

And, I might offer another perspective... The Vatican has been a political state since the 13th century. It is a theocratic dictatorship (probably more a monarchy) that has held land, adopted laws, circulated currency, established a postal service, held/used an army, and opened a whole mess of really tacky gift shops. For centuries, the Holy See was little more than an Italian city state. The pope was sovereign in Rome exactly as the Medici family was in Florence, the Doge in Venice, the Sforza family in Milan, the Este family in Ferrara, and so on. When Victor Emmanuel sacked and declared Rome the capital of a unified Italy in 1870, the Vatican walled up, closed its doors, and declared itself prisoners of Rome. It negotiated its independance from Italy on February 11, 1929 (under "Il Duce", Benito MUSSOLINI, actually...) through the three Lateran Treaties. It adopted a modern constition in 1967.

The Catholic Church has done some pretty horrible things in its history, and yet, it has somehow managed to become a force for considerable good, as well. Once leading crusades and holding inquisitions, the Church has become a staunch anti-war advocate that argues for the preservation of life on such clear lines that they often anger both Republicans and Democrats. Although I certainly don't agree with many (MANY) Church policies, I can't help but observe that the Vatican is significantly more good today than it is bad. Perhaps the accountability is there on one level or another after all. Something had to guide it "back" to where it should be.

I'm probably the most pro-UN person you'll ever meet, but whether they consider Vatican City a state or not doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. Does the UN recognize Tibet?

Whether or not the Pope is accountable to law enforcement agencies half a world away is a silly argument to make (especially if the statement is that he is less accountable for worse crimes). Would you purport that President Tran Duc Luong and King Bhumibol Adulyadej need to be arrested by Bubba the Texas Sheriff because they are knowledgable and negligent in the sex trade/abuse of Children from Vietnam and Thailand?

It really doesn't make any sense to go naming the Pope in an Amarican lawsuit. And yes - the Vatican is a State.

[emad]

42. Tibet - yes. Vatican - no. Vatican City has the same UN status

ie. observer only - as Greenpeace for instance.

Pope is no more head of state than the Archbishop of Canterbury is.

The Vatican has NO official sovereignity as a state in the way that all the countries represented at the UN have.

[Canuckistanian]

39. Oh! Just like Noriega and Aristide, too!

Not to mention the next victim, Chavez.

[jackster]

3. so when is Santorum gonna

blast Texas for being a hot-bed of liberal politics that led to this abuse?

[SpiralHawk]

4. Bush's buddy Ratzinger. Doin a heck of a job for him

Wonder if this plan was hatched in the catacombs of Rome, or in the Skull and Bones krypt in the Republican White House Sub-basement of Occult Affairs.

[emad]

5. Ratzinger old time buddy of General Pinochet - who has claimed

immunity from prosecution more times than Dumbass has had addiction relapses while in the White House......

[saigon68]

26. You have to wonder HOW EVIL Rat-Face really is?

Anyone who tolerates priests anally raping little boys is a very

EVIL PIECE OF WORK.

[Ben Ceremos]

17. Google or Jeeves

will reveal an interesting relationship between Ratzinger and Neil Bush...

[kenny blankenship]

6. that wasn't an argument made for Noriega

or Hussein or...
Basically any head of state from a weak pipsqueak country--and the Vatican City hardly qualifies as a country--is held liable to prosecution under US laws for any activity that involves the United States.

I do hope the Judge throws out this bullshit motion to dismiss with a stern reprimand to the Bushco. atty's not to bring that weak shit in his house anymore.

[TomInTib]

7. Uh, didn't this happen BEFORE

he was Popalized?

[sasha031]

8. months ago i had read

the pope contacted Bush to be given immunity from the trial in Texas, Rice responded immediately with a big yes. trying to find the link, have been googling it.

perhaps the pope would be best served if he exorcised himself of his own demons instead of worrying about others.

[Frances]

23. Popalized?

nt

[lovuian]

10. This is very very wrong!!! This is Abuse of Power!!!

You could see it coming!!!

[sasha031]

11. found it

Pope seeks immunity in Texas abuse case
17 comment(s).

VATICAN CITY -- Lawyers for Pope Benedict XVI have asked President 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.



http://www.bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7725

[TomInTib]

12. Great find! n/t

[IndianaGreen]

13. If the Vatican were a nation, we should be imposing sanctions on it

because it does not grant full rights to women and to GLBTs.

[Bridget Burke]

14. Why bother to examine the details?

On May 18, 2001, Ratzinger, as part of the implementation of the norms enacted and promulgated on April 30, 2001 by Pope John Paul II, sent a Latin language letter to every bishop in the Catholic Church reminding them of the strict penalties facing those who revealed confidential details concerning enquiries into allegations against priests of certain grave ecclesiastical crimes, including sexual abuse, reserved to the jurisdiction of the CDF.

The letter extended the prescription (statute of limitations) for these crimes to ten years. However, when the crime is sexual abuse of a minor, the "prescription begins to run from the day on that which the minor completes the eighteenth year of age." Lawyers acting for two alleged victims of abuse in Texas claim that by sending the letter the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice. However, the letter did not discourage victims from reporting the abuse itself to the police; the secrecy related to the internal investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

The whole basis of the case is a letter sent by then-Cardinal Ratzinger to keep the results of ecclesiastical investigations secret--that is, investigations done by the Church should stay within the Church.

In the Defendants' Answer filed by the Texas defendants, they allege Patino-Arango was dismissed as a seminarian the day after the parents of one of the plaintiffs reported the alleged abuse, the diocese informed Children's Protective Services of the allegation and the diocese advised Patino-Arango that he could not leave the country while law enforcement investigated. The defendants also allege in the answer that three weeks after the initial report, in June 1996, police advised the diocese that Patino-Arango was "free to leave the country."

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/050909/50631660c1e848129c4fc52d0102de3e.html?.v=1

This is a civil case. Can you sue the police?

[MGKrebs]

18. Couldn't one interpret those letters, though,

to mean that the priests being investigated (by the church) were not to talk about anything discussed in the investigation? Therefore, if the church uncovered actual abuse and discussed it with the priest, the priest was forbidden to discuss it?

Not only that, if Microsft did an internal investigation and found evidence of a crime, are they allowed to compel their employees to not discuss their investigation with police? What if it was a foreign-owned company doing business in the US?

[Bridget Burke]

19. Not having read the letter, I can't say.

Besides, my Latin is rusty.

In case under discussion, the Houston Diocese reported the abuse to the civil authorities--who screwed up.

If, if, if....

[Javaman]

15. My first thought was, "what is he hiding?"

[moobu2]

16. If the Vatican is a nation

then all it’s Churches in the USA are diplomatic missions and all their Priests are working for a foreign government TAX FREE!

Bush hates America.

[AX10]

20. The Vactican Bank also laundered money for the Mafia too.

:eyes:

Of course good ole Ratzi gets immunity. He's in with Bushco.

[political_invader]

27. also stole money from the “Holocaust Survivors”

and the 9th curcit court backed up the vatcin.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/04/nazi-gold-vatican-bank-ruling-9th.php

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

30. Check out my post: #14

It's a bit complex, so I don't blame you for incomprehension.

Do you know what "papist" means? It's rarely used nowadays outside certain Belfast neighborhoods.

[SemperEadem]

34. not as rare as it should be

the meaning is the same as it was in the 16th century and completely applicable.

A papist is a strong advocate of the papacy being the governmental ruling entity with equal or more powers to the crown/state--meaning the pope's authority supercedes one's elected official.

The Pope should not govern anything but Vatican City.

[Bridget Burke]

35. Ian Paisley agrees with you.

www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=oaths

Totally appropriate criticisms of the Church lose validity when the asccuser is shown to be a bigot.

[Scurrilous]

37. Papist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papist

<snip>

"Papist is a derisive term meaning "Roman Catholic". It was used during the English Reformation to indicate one who believed in Papal supremacy over the Anglican Church. Over time, as the political nature of the struggle between Protestants and Catholics became heated, it became a pejorative for Roman Catholics. The word ultimately derives from Latin papa, meaning "Pope". "Popish" is an adjective used much in the same vein."


(bolds mine)

[tom_paine]

22. All Imperial family members and friends are immune from the law

Why should the BushPope be any different?

[hippywife]

24. If that is so then

why was Paula Jones allowed to sue Clinton in 1998? As a sitting president and head of state, he should have been immune to her civil suit, if this is to be the guideline.

Personally, I believe no one is above the law or beyond reproach. But doesn't anyone else find this odd?

[stepnw1f]

25. Now We Know Why The Catholic Church...

has been hiding the truth for so long and doing nothing about it. It started way at the top.

[Justice]

28. If Clinton could be sued for activities that he engaged in prior to being

President, why can't Ratzinger be sued for activities engaged in prior to being Pope?

I am not understanding how the two are different legally

[leesa]

29. Well,if he won't pay for his crimes here,I guess he'll have to pay in hell

[emad]

32. Today's latest: Justice Dept says Pope immune

US says pope has immunity in suit alleging coverup
By Associated Press | September 21, 2005

ROME -- The US Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian should be dismissed because the pontiff has immunity as head of state of the Holy See.

US Attorney General Peter Keisler said in a filing Monday that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would be ''incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests."

There was no immediate ruling from Judge Lee Rosenthal of the US District Court for the southern district of Texas in Houston. However, US courts have been bound by such ''suggestion of immunity" motions submitted by the government, Keisler's filing says.

A 1994 lawsuit against Pope John Paul II, also filed in Texas, was dismissed after the US government filed a similar motion.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/09/21/us_says_pope_has_immunity_in_suit_alleging_coverup/

[emad]

33. But then the Justice Dept. always backed Pinochet's claims to

immunity. NO prizes for guess ing why but.....enough to say that the Albrittons' bank - the Riggs Bank - which laundered some $13 million for Pinochet and was recently fined $41million for its involvement in terrorism financing and bankrolling the Equatorial Guinea coup plot (which saw Mark Thatcher given a substantial albeit suspended jail sentence). And the Albrittons have always been big supporters of Republican politics - from Ronie Raygun onwards.

[anotherdrew]

40. right, well if he's a head of state, let's SANCTION the STATE

Clearly not co-operating in efforts to track down serial child abusers. Put the vatican on the list of countries not helping, sanction their ass.