The Church Scandal.

[Gt-R R34]

Pope has immunity in abuse trials: Vatican

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict, accused by victims' lawyers of being ultimately responsible for an alleged cover-up of sexual abuse of children by priests, cannot be called to testify at any trial because he has immunity as a head of state, a top Vatican legal official said on Thursday.


The interview with Giuseppe dalla Torre, head of the Vatican's tribunal, was published in Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper as Pope Benedict led Holy Thursday services in St Peter's Basilica and Catholics marked the most solemn week of the liturgical calendar, culminating on Sunday in Easter Day.


In the morning the pope blessed oils for Church services during the year, and in the evening in the Rome basilica of St John's in Lateran he washed the feet of 12 priests to commemorate Jesus' gesture of humility the night before he died.


But on the day Catholics commemorate Christ's founding of the priesthood, the pope did not refer in any of his sermons to the crisis of confidence sweeping the Church as almost daily revelations surface of sexual abuse of children in the past, accompanied by allegations of a cover-up.


Dalla Torre outlined the Vatican's strategy to defend the pope from being forced to testify in several lawsuits concerning sexual abuse which are currently moving through the U.S. legal system.


"The pope is certainly a head of state, who has the same juridical status as all heads of state," he said, arguing he therefore had immunity from foreign courts.


Lawyers representing victims of sexual abuse by priests in several cases in the United States have said they would want the pope to testify in an attempt to try to prove the Vatican was negligent.


But the pope is protected by diplomatic immunity because more than 170 countries, including the United States, have diplomatic relations with the Vatican. They recognize it as a sovereign state and the pope as its sovereign head.


Dalla Torre rejected suggestions that U.S. bishops, some of whom have been accused of moving molesters from parish to parish instead of turning them in to police, could be considered Vatican employees, making their "boss" ultimately responsible.


CHURCH NOT A MULTI-NATIONAL


"The Church is not a multi-national corporation," dalla Torre said. "He has (spiritual) primacy over the Church . . . but every bishop is legally responsible for running a diocese."


Dalla Torre also rejected suggestions by some U.S. lawyers and critics of the Church that Vatican documents in 1962 and 2001 encouraged local bishops not to report sexual abuse cases.


He re-stated the Vatican's position that the documents, one of which called for procedures to remain secret, did not suggest to bishops that they should not report cases to authorities.


"Secrecy served above all to protect the victim and also the accused, who could turn out to be innocent, and it regarded only the canonical (church) trial and did not substitute the penal process," he said.


"There is nothing that prohibited anyone (in the Church) from giving information to civil authorities."


The Vatican has taken off the gloves in its response to media reports alleging the pope mishandled a series of abuse cases before he was elected.


It launched a frontal attack on the New York Times on Wednesday night by posting a long statement on its website (http:/www.vatican.va/resources/resources tcard-levada2010 ten.html)by Cardinal William J. Levada, who succeeded the pope as head of the Vatican's doctrinal department.


Levada asked the newspaper "to reconsider its attack mode about Pope Benedict XVI and give the world a more balanced view of a leader it can and should count on".


The Vatican has denied any cover-up over the abuse of 200 deaf boys in the United States by Reverend Lawrence Murphy from 1950 to 1974. The New York Times reported the Vatican and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, were warned about Murphy but he was not defrocked.


The Times said its reports were "based on meticulous reporting and documents."

I find it somewhat disgusting that lawyers in USA want to bring the Pope into court to cross examined.

Only in america does that happen.

[underscore]

Why is that disgusting? They want him to testify in a case about 200 deaf boys who were sexually abused. I don't give a fuck who you are, you should have to testify for stuff like that. For fuck sakes why does the vatican even count as a country anyways?

[Marco911]

You don't believe in separation between church and state?

[godwin]

Obviously not the Vatican.

Originally Posted by Marco911

You don't believe in separation between church and state?

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Gt-R R34

Pope has immunity in abuse trials: Vatican



I find it somewhat disgusting that lawyers in USA want to bring the Pope into court to cross examined.

Only in america does that happen.

Why is the pope different than anyone else. If he had anything to do with the abuse he should be held accountable.

[tool001]

Originally Posted by Gt-R R34

Pope has immunity in abuse trials: Vatican



I find it somewhat disgusting that lawyers in USA want to bring the Pope into court to cross examined.

Only in america does that happen.

i find it disgusting that the church would try to cover up this shit. and not take responsibility.

PS. its the law who decides immunity, not the vatican.

[Qmx323]

lol.

y'all seen that new south park?

cartman keeps referencing it.

[q0192837465]

It's disgusting that the pope has immunity in the first place. Of all the people, the pope should be the FIRST one to stand out & testify BECAUSE he IS the head of state, not the other way around
Posted via RS Mobile

[static]

so if the catholic church killed those children, he should still be immune ?

please, the church is a big MNC with real estate holdings with no property tax and sheep that come weekly to pay money to clear their consciences.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by q0192837465

It's disgusting that the pope has immunity in the first place. Of all the people, the pope should be the FIRST one to stand out & testify BECAUSE he IS the head of state, not the other way around
Posted via RS Mobile

From the sounds of it he covered some of this stuff up before he was pope, so his "good heart" or whatever wouldn't motivate him to go because he would end up having to admit that he helped to cover up this asshole child molester which looks very bad on the church cause he's the damn pope now. And don't forget he was a member (yes I know they didn't have a choice but still) of the hitler youth or whatever IIRC.

[murd0c]

The vatican = biggest/most powerful organized gang in the world.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Ilagon]

Originally Posted by Qmx323

lol.

y'all seen that new south park?

cartman keeps referencing it.

That episode was fuckin' hilarious!
Posted via RS Mobile

[carisear]

so, you guys think that if some canadian foreign diplomat in tibet abused a child in 1950, prime minister harper should be held accountable?

that's about as close a comparison as i can make from reading this article.

[underscore]

^ read the article, your comparison would have to be that Harper helped to cover up a mayor molesting children back before he was PM, but now that he is PM they say that he can't be called to be cross examined in the trial of this mayor.

[rsx]

I don't have a problem with them summoning the Pope to testify. He's essentially the CEO of a MNC, and anything his Office does, he's ultimately responsible for.

[MyPresIzBlack]

This is what happens when you give the church so much power. When Vatican was allowed to put up walls and create its own city pretty much with its own internal laws, this shit was bound to happen. I find it utterly fucked up and disgusting that this shit is happening within the catholic church.

My parents made me go to a catholic high school. It was stupid as shit. I turned out worse than a public school kid lol!

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by Gt-R R34

I find it somewhat disgusting that lawyers in USA want to bring the Pope into court to cross examined.

Only in america does that happen.

I should fucking ban you for saying that. The pope is covering up the sexual abuse of hundreds of kids. And you think it's disgusting that they are asking him to be responsible for it? Are you a pedophile too? You sick fuck.

[underscore]

^ can I report it and then you give him points?

[PiuYi]

as a catholic, I don't think the pope should be summoned to court, he's a religious leader, not the CEO of a MNC, the church is not a profit-maximizing firm, it has assets, but it is not looking for profit, it uses its assets for the proliferation of its religion as any religion does, only on a grander scale

i think the lawyers are just looking to make a name for themselves... they know they're not gonna be able to get the pope to testify
plus their argument for a cover up seems baseless and weak

[underscore]

Originally Posted by PiuYi

as a catholic, I don't think the pope should be summoned to court, he's a religious leader, not the CEO of a MNC, the church is not a profit-maximizing firm, it has assets, but it is not looking for profit, it uses its assets for the proliferation of its religion as any religion does, only on a grander scale

i think the lawyers are just looking to make a name for themselves... they know they're not gonna be able to get the pope to testify
plus their argument for a cover up seems baseless and weak

All I can say is SO FUCKING WHAT? I don't give a fuck if it was jesus motherfucking christ himself they wanted to call upon, if a lawyer wants you in that courtroom for a case involving something like 200 counts of child molestation YOU SHOULD FUCKING GO.

That fact that he is unwilling to go, to me, makes it seem like he did help cover something up and the guy is guilty. You would think he would be pretty motivated to go if it could clear up one of the biggest issues surrounding his church and the guy is actually innocent.

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by PiuYi

as a catholic, I don't think the pope should be summoned to court, he's a religious leader, not the CEO of a MNC, the church is not a profit-maximizing firm, it has assets, but it is not looking for profit, it uses its assets for the proliferation of its religion as any religion does, only on a grander scale

i think the lawyers are just looking to make a name for themselves... they know they're not gonna be able to get the pope to testify
plus their argument for a cover up seems baseless and weak

uh.... what?

the pope was in charge of dealing with these particular matters when these incidents went on

and it was the pope who ignored accusations and words of concerns about this particular issue...

he's directly involved with the damned case...

that's like having a court case about theft from a bank... and saying the head of security involved with this case shouldn't be called as a witness and has nothing to do with it....

what???

[BaoXu]

is there a pedobear picture with a catholic hat?

that would be funny.

[PiuYi]

hmm i'm actually not to sure about how things work at the vatican but i'm guessing the pope didn't have the authority to excommunicate Reverend Murphy at the time? it says he was warned about it but not that he was in charge of the accusations against R. Murphy

but the reason I don't think the pope should have to testify is not so much that I don't think he should be accountable if things like this are happening within the church, but its more a question of should the pope be subject to US law or should the US law have authority over religion? As the long drawn out case with the polygamists in Bounty have proven, clashing state law with religion opens up pandoras box and throws out a whack load of questions nobody has answers to... I think I'm rambling on now but back to the point, so lets say US courts say he's guilty, so do you send the pope to prison? will the public allow it? do you order the church to pay severences? the church isn't a firm so does the judicial system have the authority to order a religion to pay?

blehh i know alot of people will disagree with me but I just think ordering the pope to testify will end up being a "bite more than you can chew" scenario, the church is investigating into these matters, bishops are testifying... if the pope himself was involved with such a scandal, God forbid, then it'd be a different matter, but I think these cases can be settled without the pope having to testify

[underscore]

^ do you actually get what is going on? They want to call in the pope to testify about an American bishop who molested 200 boys, and the now-pope was part of covering it up due to the position the now-pope was in with the church at that time. This is not about what happens in the church or state having authority over religion (which it should, but that's another discussion), this is a child molestation case.

And I'm sorry but fuck the church, they had their chance to investigate and chose to sweep it under the rug, and this is the result. One side of my family is Catholic but fuck, I would fly out there and drag his old wrinkly ass into that courtroom myself if I could.

[C.Dub]