Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.Was the Catholic priest considered a citizen of the country in which he resided in? Did his Bishop require him to give up citizenship upon entering the priesthood, thereby making the priest exempt from prosecution for crimes violating UK law against UK citizens committed on UK soil?
-- Romans 13:1
Do (and should) Catholic churches on foreign soil be considered embassies of a foreign nation?
What is the legal/moral difference between:
I think the question can be taken to fantastic extremes, and I’m not sure how useful that is.
But IIRC in Maryland in the ‘70’s clergy could not sit on juries. There may have been other mild civil disabilities which I was happy to shoulder in exchange for the right to keep confidences.
And when the governing authorities say, "Non licet esse Christianus" what does "being subject" involve?
Serious question. I'm too tired to play gotcha
“a “foreign national” seeking asylum within embassy walls, in an effort to avoid prosecution by the host country, and
an officer/agent of said foreign nation seeking “diplomatic immunity” from prosecution after committing felonies against the host country - and still being put forth by the foreign nation as their authorized representative within the host country?”
There are substantial differences. Priests, are admitted on their own visas, and are, in many cases, not subject to the jurisdiction in which they serve. There is nothing untoward about this, this is standard practice, done all over the world. They are exempt because they never have been subject. This isn’t post, but prior to their entry into the United Kingdom.