There's a lot of talk about trying to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested and put on trial for the cover up of so much sexual abuse which has occurred in the Catholic Church. No one accuses the pope of having abused children himself, but he is accused of helping in the cover up a lot of the abuse -- and that effectively makes him complicit in the origin crimes. What do you think about that? Should a pope -- any pope -- be arrested for something like this?
Note: To make it easier for people to find a choice they agree with, I have two options that are "with qualifications." Under "Yes (with qualifications)," what I have in mind is a person who is inclined to support arrest and trial, but only under certain conditions -- like where a trial is held. Under "No (provisionally, with qualifications)," what I have in mind is a person who is inclined against it but would change their mind with new evidence or some other change to the situation.
It could be argued that there is no proof that the pope covered up sexual abuse crimes while he was Cardinal Josef Ratzinger and that's a fair point -- but is it really a relevant point? After all, one of the purposes of a trial is to establish the quality of evidence against a person. It wouldn't make sense to never hold a trial of a person until everyone agrees that the evidence against them is absolute and unequivocal.
People are routinely arrested and put on trial with weaker evidence that what we seem to have in the case against Pope Benedict XVI, it seems to me, so unless those opposed to arrest also favor massive changes in the legal system then they appear to be guilty of hypocrisy. If what they want are special rules for popes (and maybe cardinals, bishops, and priests) then they should say so directly and make a case for that.
I guess my first questions would be:
“Arrested by whom?” and “Put on trial where?”
Yes, with a qualification:
Don’t limit the investigation to just the Pope. The abuses documented in the Ryan report and elsewhere are too widespread, and occur over too wide a range of time, to be placed on the shoulders of one man. That does a horrible injustice to the survivors of clergy abuse.
Since the Pope is the head of a sovereign state, Who would have the authority to arrest him?
He was a nazi befire he was a Pope.
Ron,
There is considerable debate right now about whether or not the Vatican qualifies as a sovereign nation. Even if it were, the Vatican is not exempt or excused from abiding by international law.
Saddam Hussein and Slobadan Milosevic were heads of state who were arrested and tried in international courts of law. I would imagine the arresting party would be the law enforcement agency or the military of the country in which the Pope lived; in this case, Italy.
I don’t know if he was ever a Nazi (I think not) but many people got sucked into that ideology just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It has nothing to do with the question of whether he should be arrested now for his part in the cover-up of clergy sexual abuse.
(I posted this on FB before reading.)
Yup.
Innocent until proven guilty, but I imagine there’s enough evidence to indict him. Obstruction of justice seems to be the least of his crimes. Can they bring back Bernard Law, too?
I’m sure there would be plenty of issues involved in bringing the head of a sovereign state to trial. (Would the trial be held in the Vatican, in Italy, Ireland, the USA, someplace neutral like Switzerland?)
I don’t know know how his status as head of a major religion would affect things. Perhaps there is no precedent for that.
MrMarkas; Please check your facts Hussein was convicted and executed by the Iraq people in Iraq. Slobadan Milosevic wasn’t executed at all he died in custody awaiting sentencing of a, claimed, heart attack.
If the pope is to be tried I suppose he should be tried in the country where he was at the time of the cover up and under his real name, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger.
The pope on trial? Now we would finally have something worthwhile to watch on television. BRING IT ON!
It would seem that Mr. Ratzinger is responsible for covering up, or suppressing information in relation to illegal activities. Those affected by such illegal activities must make a claim against those involved. It would seem that either the countries where the illegal activities took place should male arrests, but the international criminal court could probably take this one. I hope someone makes an example of these religiously pompous degenerates.
FMF
The first question put by fauxrs is the most relevant.
The U S A seems to think, along with Israel, that their laws are paramount, and are applicable to any nationality any where in the world, their own nationals, of course being exempt from other nations laws.
That being said the Pope or any other person should never be above the law. But whose law? The only court that can conceivably be considered is the International Court, but the U S A, once again, only agrees on this venue in selective cases. The “selective” ending at their borders or maybe Israel’s.
Why stop at the Pope?, there are many other titular leaders who have actually been involved in international crime. The U S A’s for starters.
Forget about it, it isn’t about to happen.Bringing George Bush to trial has more chance than the Pope’s. if anybody will give me odds I’ll wager he won’t see a court either.
I agree with Tom. There are probably many other eminent figures who have committed far worse atrocities. The late president Eisenhower warned against the US military-industrial complex and its vested interested in fomenting war. If we want to go on a witch hunt, that’s a good place to start.
In practice – it seems there is already special treatment for clergy that have been accused of crimes.
I’m against arresting the pope. It would merely create a massive martyr in the eyes of millions of Catholics. Better to let the church cruel itself. There is another news item at the moment accusing a cardinal as the Bishop of Rome of fraud and bribery.
I have a question for you folks.
Will you now arrest the Presidents of Russian,
China and any other head of a State for violations
of Human Rights. As I see it its a bit like the
pot calling the kettle black.
Are they leaders of organizations whose employees and representatives committed crimes in the US, Britain, Germany, etc? Are they leaders who appear to have aided and abetted the cover up of said crimes?
If not, then there is no analogy there. The comparison is so weak, it doesn’t even qualify as grasping for straws; at best, it’s a deliberate attempt at distraction from the real issues.
It would be a huge step on the road to that (Utopian?) world where absolutely no one is above the law. Sadly, I must agree with several other posters that it’s unlikely to happen any time soon. If ever.