Posted on 04/01/2010 7:55:47 AM PDT by Biggirl
You wrote:
“You can make semantic arguments all day, and accomplish nothing. The Pope is making the argument that he is entitled to the immunity that is to be accorded to a “foreign sovereign” in a host jurisdiction. So it is not my argument.”
Where did he make such an argument? I don’t think the pope said a word about this. The headline says it was the Vatican. The aricle says “a top Vatican legal official said on Thursday.” I don’t see the pope saying anything on this. This already known to anyone who has every studied international law anyway.
“Furthermore, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” How does the Pope’s assertion of soverign immunity accord with this lesson?”
Simple. 1) As the head of state he owes nothing to Caesar because he is Caesar in Vatican City and no foreign power has any authority over him. 2) He renders to God His due. That’s why he always opposed the abuse of children and has acted so steadfastly to stamp it out.
On your point: substitute "Ayatollah" for "Pope," "Iran" for "Vatican City," and "Nashville, TN" for "Milwaukee WI" in this thought experiment if you want to: if the circumstances were the same, I would apply the same standard.
The Pope (Ratzinger at the time) had no relationship to the School for the Deaf as bishop or canonical superior or in any other way. His only connection to the case is that his office was pursuing a criminal trial under canon law against the by-then dying offender priest after the Archbishop of Milwaukee, Weakland, sat on the case for 20 years. Ratzinger's deputy (Narciso Bertone) was actually trying to expedite laicization at the time: but the priest soon thereafter died, while still a defendant on canonical charges which were at no point abated.
Ratzinger and the CDF did nothing to impede or block or cover up the canonical process in Wisconsin, which is where the action should have been taken decades earlier. If someone wanted to move against Weakland, (or, in your thought experiment, the hypothetical "Muslim Bishop-equivalent Nasir al Din,") I'd send bouquets and sugared almonds to the prosecution. Inshallah.
I am not sure I will understand, if you argue that this position cannot be attributed to the Pope.
Simple. 1) As the head of state he owes nothing to Caesar because he is Caesar in Vatican City and no foreign power has any authority over him.
Not so simple. The Pope enjoys the benefits of doing business in Ceasar's jurisdiction, where Ceasar collects taxes, prosecutes crimes and redresses harms caused by the agents of the Vatican (I am making a hypothetical argument here becauise I do not believe that the Pope is guilty of crime or tortious conduct). So if you intend to argue that the Pope's authority in the host jurisdictions is etherial only and has a corporeal presence only in Vatical City, you can spare me the pedantry.
Biggirl, you might find this really interesting:
http://www.620wtmj.com/podcasts/charlie_sykes_podcast/89617267.html?video=pop&t=a
There is undoubtedly wrongdoing in this case, but it rests in Wisconsin. This (italicized)from the Catholic League (Link) makes the point pretty clearly:
Why did the victims' families wait as long as 15 years to report the abuse? Why were the civil authorities unconvinced by what they uncovered? Why did Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland wait almost two decades before he contacted the Vatican?
Weakland's record in handling sex abuse cases is a matter of record. In 1984, he branded as "libelous" those who reported cases of priestly sexual abuse (he was rebuked by the courts for doing so). Ten years later he accused those who reported such cases of "squealing." And, of course, he had to resign when his lover, a 53 year-old man, revealed that Weakland paid him $450,000 to settle a sexual assault lawsuit (Weakland took the money from archdiocesan funds). It's a sure bet that if Weakland were a theological conservative--and not a champion of liberal causes--the media (including the National Catholic Reporter and Commonweal) would be all over him.
We also need to learn from Laurie Goodstein why she waited until Wednesday, March 30, to interview Fr. Thomas Brundage, the priest who presided over the Murphy trial. Brundage has said that the pope, then Cardinal Ratzinger, had absolutely nothing to do with the Murphy case.
There's dirt in the Murphy case, but it sits in the U.S.A.--not Rome.
You wrote:
“I am not sure I will understand, if you argue that this position cannot be attributed to the Pope.”
It can’t be attributed to the pope because it can’t be attributed to the pope. International law EXISTED before this pope and will continue AFTER this pope. Pope Benedict didn’t create it and isn’t arguing for anything in regard to it in the article. Now, what part of that do you not understand? After all, you just admitted who said the “argument”: Giuseppe dalla Torre. Last time I checked he was not the pope.
“Not so simple.”
Yes, so simple.
“The Pope enjoys the benefits of doing business in Ceasar’s jurisdiction, where Ceasar collects taxes, prosecutes crimes and redresses harms caused by the agents of the Vatican (I am making a hypothetical argument here becauise I do not believe that the Pope is guilty of crime or tortious conduct).”
No. The pope does no business here and it wouldn’t matter if he did. If you’re immune, you’re immune. Period.
“So if you intend to argue that the Pope’s authority in the host jurisdictions is etherial only and has a corporeal presence only in Vatical City, you can spare me the pedantry.”
He is immune. Complain all you like, but it is international law. Period.
Thanks and have bookmarked it for latter listening. This attacks comes at the same time as Holy Week, the Pope suffering with the suffering Christ.
Catholic bashing on FR has become a very frequent sport. why doesn’t the administrator start to take note at least during holy week.
We are not talking about ceremonial law here, but the moral law. I don’t think God puts Himself above His own law, because if He did, and His law is moral, then He Himself would become immoral.
God follows His own rules.
As one who hasn’t followed all the hoopla about these abuse cases, I have no “horse” in the race, nor I have invested much time or energy in reading about real or alleged abuses.
To clarify my understanding. The pope’s brother was involved with a choir where sexual/other abuses occured or were alleged to occur. The leadership didn’t take appropriate actions because they either didn’t know about the abuses or didn’t “care” about correcting the abuses (for whatever reasons, including, but not limited to, embarrassment to the church and/or priesthood).
To whatever extent the pope may have been involved in the “abuse,” or had any knowledge of, connection to, or leadership involvement with the abusers/alleged abusers, he should testify if the case comes to trial(s).
I find it hard to believe that those in leadership, particularly for any protracted period of time, are completely unaware of the shortcomings of their subordinates. If they are, it is either because they wilfully choose to be so, or are incompetent (or are involved themselves). In any case, there should be consequences for their failed leadership, including assisting those with the authority/responsibility to protect those who have been injured.
The pope shouldn’t try to hide behind his “cross,” but deny himself and take it up.
Well who can argue with that tautology?
Giuseppe dalla Torre. Last time I checked he was not the pope.
Look - dalla Torre is the appointed legal representative for the Pope. His statements, from a legal point, of view are attributable to the Pope. The Pope's legal strategy is to assert soverign immunity.
Furthermore the Holy See argued soverign immunity where Doe alleged that the Holy See was vicariously liable for Ronan's abuse of Doe and for the negligent actions of the Archdiocese, the Order, and the Chicago Bishop, and that the Holy See was itself negligent in its retention and supervision of Ronan and in failing to warn of his propensities in Doe v. Holy See 557 F.3d 1066, 1071 (C.A.9 (Or.),2009). Specifically, The Holy See moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that as a foreign sovereign, it is presumptively immune from suit under the FSIA, and that neither the “tortious act” exception to sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5), nor the “commercial activity” exception to sovereign immunity, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), applies.
If you cannot see that dalla Torre publicly stated a legal position of the Pope, under conditions that invites all listeners to believe that his statements are authorized by the Pope, and which affirms a legal position the Pope has taken in a Court of Law, I cannot help you.
He is immune. Complain all you like, but it is international law. Period.
I am not complaining. I am telling what the law is, which is not as clear cut as you believe it is.
Under FISA, in the event of a finding that the Holy See involved itself day-to-day, routine involvement in the affairs of an Archdiocese, an Order, or a Bishop, it cannot successfully assert sovereign immunity, unless the involvement implements “political, social, and economic judgments.” The Holy See bears the burden of proving the exception. Thus, the Holy See would retain immunity if its decision to retain a pedofile and not to warn his parishioners because it felt that to do otherwise would have harmed the Church's reputation locally, or because it felt that pastoral stability was sufficiently important for the parishioners' well-being, or because low ordination rates or staffing shortages made it necessary to keep the pedofile on.
To the extent that the Holy See promulgates and enforces the laws and regulations regarding the education, training and standards of conduct and discipline for its members and those who serve in the governmental, administrative, judicial, educational and pastoral workings of the Catholic Church world-wide, including those that the Holy See knew were involved in child molestation, I believe it has waived its immunity, because all of this is a "commercial activity" under FISA. Commercial activity includes an employment relationship between a foreign sovereign and its employee, so long as the employee is not a civil service, diplomatic, or military employee. But that is just me talking. Whether these activities are "commercial actiivities" under FISA is a close legal question that the Holy See may eventaually lose.
Which all brings me back to Matthew. The coin that I put in the basket on Sunday commercially benefits the Holy See, which refuses to render it back onto Ceasar by asserting sovereign immunity.
I do not argue about any of the facts. I do not know what they are. I pray they will exhonerate him. I am just telling you about the legal process, which the Pope is thwarting, I believe, without biblical authorization.
The article which started this thread is about Giuseppe dalla Torre, a jurist, pointing out that the Pope has legal immunity as a head of state. It's simply the fact. There's not one word in the article about the Pope's intention, opinion, or preference. It is a factual statement of international law.
You wrote:
“We are not talking about ceremonial law here, but the moral law. I don’t think God puts Himself above His own law, because if He did, and His law is moral, then He Himself would become immoral. God follows His own rules.”
The pope violated none of the Ten Commandments. End of story.
You wrote:
“To whatever extent the pope may have been involved in the “abuse,” or had any knowledge of, connection to, or leadership involvement with the abusers/alleged abusers, he should testify if the case comes to trial(s).”
There will be no criminal trials and the pope won’t testify and was in no way involved in anything that lead to a crime.
Ha Ha.
If Jesus (and James, and John, and Peter and Paul) knows what He is (they are) talking about we have all violated the Ten Commandments, the pope included.
How did you come by this absolute knowledge about the pope?
You wrote: “There will be no criminal trials and the pope won’t testify and was in no way involved in anything that lead to a crime.”
You know these things you assert for a fact?
you wrote:
“Well who can argue with that tautology?”
Logically, no one. The pope NEVER made the argument. It’s simply international law. Period.
“Look - dalla Torre is the appointed legal representative for the Pope. His statements, from a legal point, of view are attributable to the Pope.”
Nope. It’s simply international law. Period.
“The Pope’s legal strategy is to assert soverign immunity.”
Nope. It’s simply international law. Period. There is no strategy and none is needed. The pope has immunity. It’s simply international law.
Also, in the future, I suggest you properly USE QUOTE MARKS rather than cut and paste passages.
You wrote:
“How did you come by this absolute knowledge about the pope?”
Is there any logical reason to think otherwise? Please post your evidence to the contrary.
You wrote:
“You know these things you assert for a fact?”
Feel free to post your evidence to the contrary. Got any?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.