Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pathos]

YouTube:
Johann Hari talking about the basic principles: Part 1, Part 2
Richard Dawkins supporting the campaign

Spoiler: The Basics (click to show/hide)

The current Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, was, from 1981 until his inauguration as Pope, as Prefect ( leader, basically, under the name Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger ) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with child sex cases in the Catholic Church. As Prefect, Benedict XVI ordered all child sex cases be handled only by him, that everyone in the Catholic Church should remain secretive about them and aided priests in moving from places they had been accused of sexually abusing children at.

Basically, the idea is thus:
- First, the Vatican is not a country recognised by EU or UN law.
- Second, there is legal precedent that a leader of a country can be trialled for crimes against humanity in a different country.
- Third, this is a man who has aided thousands of paedophiles and used his religious authority to condemn people who have talked or tried to deal with the situation.

Personally, I think this really needs to get done. Not only does it provide an sort of end to the suffering of tens of thousands of people being sexually abused by priests, but it also proves that no one - no matter their religion, position in life or amount of followers - is above the world's law.

What about you all?

[Leafsnail]

Not the Pope, but certainly the priests in question.  For some reason they seem to be immune to the law.

[Pathos]

Not the Pope, but certainly the priests in question.  For some reason they seem to be immune to the law.

The Pope organised the entire conspiracy, so I see no reason he shouldn't be arrested. The best way to kill a snake is to cut off it's head, after all.

[Jreengus]

I was under the impression Vatican City was its own country, it would set a bad precedent. If the pope can be arrested then why can't Barack or any leader?

[psyn]

Not that I follow this story, but I've always found it amusing that the Vatican state law age of consent is 12. So much for 'think of the children.' Or maybe it really is.

[subject name here]

Being Pope means never having to say you're sorry when a bunch of kids get raped.

[fenrif]

I was under the impression Vatican City was its own country, it would set a bad precedent. If the pope can be arrested then why can't Barack or any leader?

Because Barack doesn't commit crimes in other countries? Or knowling attempt to thwart the laws of other countries?

[Pathos]

I was under the impression Vatican City was its own country, it would set a bad precedent. If the pope can be arrested then why can't Barack or any leader?

As Johann said, it was formed by Mussolini, it's a crime against humanity ( political immunity doesn't protect against it ) and it's got legal precedent in an Israeli politician who tried to come to England only to find she had a warrant filed against her, and so bailed.

[Jude]

It's a publicity stunt, nobody thinks it's actually going to happen.

Personally, I think this really needs to get done. Not only does it provide an sort of end to the suffering of tens of thousands of people being sexually abused by priests,

How does it do that

There will just be another pope who was probably in on the coverup too

In any case nobody knows whether there was even one organized coverup or just many cases of officials not reporting things to their higher-ups, so it would be dumb to arrest the pope as a ringleader

In conclusion, priestly celibacy is stupid and the Orthodox church has the right idea, the Catholics should get with the program; if you only allow men to be priests who can resist having sex, then you're going to end up with all the deviants in the priesthood, with no licit outlet for their sexual urges to boot. Plus there's a pretty high rate of priests carrying on secret heterosexual (adult) relationships according to some poll I heard

[Pathos]

How does it do that

There will just be another pope who was probably in on the coverup too

In any case nobody knows whether there was even one organized coverup or just many cases of officials not reporting things to their higher-ups, so it would be dumb to arrest the pope as a ringleader

You might like to watch the links I posted.

[Xotes]

I don't have time to spare at the moment to watch those videos (then why're you posting on the internetlolz), so forgive me if there's some world-shattering detail about the pope being involved that I don't know. I'm not angry about your opinion, but the notion that the Pope's the ringleader behind all these abuse cases is, to me, absurd. He's an old guy who goes out and waves to people and performs mass. (AND COVERS UP ABUSE CASES YEAH /sarc) That's really about it.

In conclusion, priestly celibacy is stupid and the Orthodox church has the right idea, the Catholics should get with the program; if you only allow men to be priests who can resist having sex, then you're going to end up with all the deviants in the priesthood, with no licit outlet for their sexual urges to boot. Plus there's a pretty high rate of priests carrying on secret heterosexual (adult) relationships according to some poll I heard

what is that i don't even

That's only tangentially related and we weren't even discussing that in the first place. We're arguing over arresting the Pope.

[Bauglir]

Haven't got time to watch the videos at the moment, will do it later, but my preliminary opinion is that it's silly to arrest the Pope over this. If the videos contain solid evidence that the Pope knew about this and did nothing to stop it, then maybe there's some sense here, but otherwise it's like saying... well, I can't come up with any good analogies that won't lead to flamewars here, but anyway. Hopefully the videos don't amount to people SAYING the evidence exists, though, I'd want it to be presented directly.

[Pathos]

I don't have time to spare at the moment to watch those videos (then why're you posting on the internetlolz), so forgive me if there's some world-shattering detail about the pope being involved that I don't know. I'm not angry about your opinion, but the notion that the Pope's the ringleader behind all these abuse cases is, to me, absurd. He's an old guy who goes out and waves to people and performs mass. (AND COVERS UP ABUSE CASES YEAH /sarc) That's really about it.

Basically, in 1981, the current Pope became the Prefect ( leader, basically ) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which at the time ( and possibly currently, I'm uncertain of this ) was the main handler of child sex cases. The Pope ordered all sex cases be sent STRAIGHT to him, and sent a letter out in 1985 to ALL priests a part of which read:-

"Cases of child abuse should be dealt with in the most secretive way, restrained by perpetual silence and everybody is to observe the strict secret."

So, yes, he certainly was aware of this.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Imagine if Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina, or Uzbekistan sent out religious agents to other countries, where they set up religious organizations involving multiple lesser officers. And these religious agents covered up the crimes of their lesser officers.

Clearly the lesser officers are at fault for whatever crimes they committed.

Clearly the religious agents are at fault for any coverups, considering certain crimes such as conspiracy and abetting a criminal.

The lesser officers (direct criminals) and the religious agents (coverups, indirect criminals) committed their crimes within the jurisdiction of the host country.

But it's unclear whether the politicians in the original country are under any law but their own. If their laws are built to protect them, what can you do? Each country has sovereignty in its own borders. And international law is effectively voluntary on a country-by-country basis, except that if you don't play nice everyone else might punish you by withholding or blocking you ... or, I suppose if they're violent enough, invading.

Something tells me Vatican City is pretty safe from any kind of political / economic / and especially military punishments from other countries.

I think in order to actually get anything done against the pope, you would have to file a lawsuit in Vatican City against him. And it's entirely possible that he's immune to civilian lawsuits under Vatican City law.

[fenrif]

Imagine if Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina, or Uzbekistan sent out religious agents to other countries, where they set up religious organizations involving multiple lesser officers. And these religious agents covered up the crimes of their lesser officers.

Clearly the lesser officers are at fault for whatever crimes they committed.

Clearly the religious agents are at fault for any coverups, considering certain crimes such as conspiracy and abetting a criminal.

The lesser officers (direct criminals) and the religious agents (coverups, indirect criminals) committed their crimes within the jurisdiction of the host country.

But it's unclear whether the politicians in the original country are under any law but their own. If their laws are built to protect them, what can you do? Each country has sovereignty in its own borders. And international law is effectively voluntary on a country-by-country basis, except that if you don't play nice everyone else might punish you by withholding or blocking you ... or, I suppose if they're violent enough, invading.

Something tells me Vatican City is pretty safe from any kind of political / economic / and especially military punishments from other countries.

I think in order to actually get anything done against the pope, you would have to file a lawsuit in Vatican City against him. And it's entirely possible that he's immune to civilian lawsuits under Vatican City law.

Well the whole point of this is that the UK government is paying for the pope to come visit, this is intended to stop that i suppose (our taxes should go towards helping us, not paying for some child molester ex-nazi to come on holiday).

As per your example, while the leaders of those countries may be relativly safe in their own countries, if they then go and visit the countries (highly publicized visit mind you) that are after them, then they're probobly gonna get into a sticky situation legally.