Human rights and the pope

[Leela]

Though the pope is considered to be infallible on matters of dogma, could the pope be guilty of human rights violations?

From the New York Times:
"Dawkins, a scientist and outspoken critic of religion, has asked human rights lawyers to examine whether charges could be brought against the pope.

The four-day trip, from September 16 to 19, will be the first papal visit since Pope John Paul II’s pastoral visit in 1982 and is the first official papal visit to Britain.

The Catholic church has rejected claims the pope helped to cover up abuse by priests and the Vatican has accused the media of waging a “despicable campaign of defamation” against him.

Dawkins and the English journalist Christopher Hitchens have commissioned lawyers Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to explore ways of taking legal action against the pope.

In an email to Reuters, Stephens said there are three possible approaches: a complaint to the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands, a private or public prosecution “for crimes against humanity” or a civil case.

They will argue that the pope does not have diplomatic immunity from prosecution as a head of state because the Vatican has “permanent observer status” at the United Nations rather than full membership and voting rights.

Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion” and “The Selfish Gene,” told the Sunday Times newspaper that he suspected child abuse by church members had been covered up.

Hitchens, who published a book in 2007 called “God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion,” said: “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalized concealment of child abuse is a crime under any law.”

Critics have accused Benedict of negligence in handling abuse cases in previous roles as a cardinal in his native Germany, and in Rome.

The Vatican has denied any cover-up over the abuse of 200 deaf boys in the United States. The pope has not commented directly on the wave of sexual abuse allegations that has shaken the church around the world, including the United States, Ireland, Italy and Germany."

nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/11/world/international-us-britain-pope-arrest.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=dawkins%20pope&st=cse

 

[Spencerian]

Hi, there.

It’s important to note that the Catholic Church is neither democratic nor autocratic. While the Holy Father is the leader of the bishops, the hierarchy does not work like a CEO to his subordinates in a company. Bishops are the *de facto *heads of a region of churches known as a diocese. Only when a bishop or priest does something that’s critically against canon law (the internal rules that define ecclesiastical norms for the Mass and the laity) does a pope step in to censure a bishop.

The Catholic Church (especially in the U.S.) can and does respond to cases of abuse but also works to do what most families do when a member has gone astray: It tries to fix the problem without calling undue public attention and spectacle to it.

I would not pay much attention to the likes of Mr. Dawkins due to his bias as a vehement anti-Catholic. He is pushing an agenda more than seeking out the true justice that should be given to both the accusers and the accused. There are many other non-religious people who can and have submitted less vitriolic thoughts on these scandals that might be of more interest and have more logical arguments to supply.

Keep in mind, too, that such abuses aren’t new to the Church or reside only in the Catholic Church. There are many news reports of non-Catholic churches and others who have serious sex abuse problems. It’s not excuse for the Church, but given that the Catholic Church is over 1 billion people, it’s bound to get greater attention.

 

[redhen]

Keep in mind, too, that such abuses aren’t new to the Church or reside only in the Catholic Church. There are many news reports of non-Catholic churches and others who have serious sex abuse problems. It’s not excuse for the Church, but given that the Catholic Church is over 1 billion people, it’s bound to get greater attention.

Not just Christianity either; buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,9048,0,0,1,0

msnbc.msn.com/id/35944804/

I could find other examples, but suffice to say that bad people do bad things, and other bad people try to cover them up. Ho hum… nothing new in that. The only difference I see is that the media and leftists (is that oxymoronic?) love to attack the Roman Catholic church, it’s their favourite punching bag.

 

[Leela]

It’s important to note that the Catholic Church is neither democratic nor autocratic. While the Holy Father is the leader of the bishops, the hierarchy does not work like a CEO to his subordinates in a company. Bishops are the *de facto *heads of a region of churches known as a diocese. Only when a bishop or priest does something that’s critically against canon law (the internal rules that define ecclesiastical norms for the Mass and the laity) does a pope step in to censure a bishop.

It is my understanding that he is to be charged for crimes committed while he was a bishop rather than as pope.

Keep in mind, too, that such abuses aren’t new to the Church or reside only in the Catholic Church. There are many news reports of non-Catholic churches and others who have serious sex abuse problems. It’s not excuse for the Church, but given that the Catholic Church is over 1 billion people, it’s bound to get greater attention.

What makes the Chuch deserving of greater attention in such matters is the fact that the Church regards itself as a moral standard for others to follow. People trusted the Church to do the right thing.

 

[edwest2]

It is my understanding that he is to be charged for crimes committed while he was a bishop rather than as pope.

What makes the Chuch deserving of greater attention in such matters is the fact that the Church regards itself as a moral standard for others to follow. People trusted the Church to do the right thing.

Who will be charging him for any alleged crimes? People have been misinformed:

bishop-accountability.org/news5/2010_03_30_Donohue_GoingFor.htm

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[TheAtheist]

Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion” and “The Selfish Gene,” told the Sunday Times newspaper that he suspected child abuse by church members had been covered up.

Hitchens, who published a book in 2007 called “God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion,” said: “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalized concealment of child abuse is a crime under any law.”

:ehh:

It is at this time i reiterate how utterly dumbstruck I am when i consider how Richard Dawkins has somehow become the torch-bearer for atheism.

What in the name of Fermat’s last theorem will this prove? I could list the number of Popes who’ve committed far worse than hiding child abuse. Even if it comes out that Benedict was complicit in doing as such, there will be no “great reversal” amongst those who ascribe to that faith. At worse he steps down as Pope, and life proceeds as usual.

in fact, having Richard on the scene will only add fuel to the fire. Instead of trying to legitimately get at the truth of the matter, all it will do is provoke a counter-reaction amongst the faithful. There’s enough “my Tribe Right or Wrong” Catholics that would rally around him and take this as an attack on their faith - and in doing so bury the rather critical issue at hand.

As for actually sending him to trial - he’s a freakin head of state! Even with the existence of the Hague, there’s no court that can legitimately try a head of state on the basis of human rights violations. Much less enforce it, otherwise we would have Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein out of power by sending Interpol over. Heck, 1/2 of Europe would have probably done the same to last American president.

 

[edwest2]

Richard Dawkins also has his own tribal following. Let’s also not forget Sam Harris and PZ Myers.

The American press has also turned increasingly pagan. I watched it change over the decades. Even some of the “comics” have a leftist-anarchist bent.

This a well organized and well funded push by anti-theists during a vulnerable period for the Church. No surprise. As the politicians say, “It’s time to make hay,” and take advantage of the opposing side.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[Leela]

As for actually sending him to trial - he’s a freakin head of state!

How do you figure? What state is he the head of???

Even with the existence of the Hague, there’s no court that can legitimately try a head of state on the basis of human rights violations. Much less enforce it, otherwise we would have Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein out of power by sending Interpol over. Heck, 1/2 of Europe would have probably done the same to last American president.

If we could have sent interpol in to arrest Hussein, don’t you think we wold have done that? What keeps us from going in to arrest Kim Jong Il is that he has a lot of soldiers and weapons. Thank goodness popes don’t have those sorts of things anymore.

 

[Cristiano]

How do you figure? What state is he the head of???..

Are you for real?

…If we could have sent interpol in to arrest Hussein, don’t you think we wold have done that? What keeps us from going in to arrest Kim Jong Il is that he has a lot of soldiers and weapons. Thank goodness popes don’t have those sorts of things anymore.

So you are saying that if something is difficult to do, we should just forget about it?

 

[Thing]

How do you figure? What state is he the head of???

If we could have sent interpol in to arrest Hussein, don’t you think we wold have done that? What keeps us from going in to arrest Kim Jong Il is that he has a lot of soldiers and weapons. Thank goodness popes don’t have those sorts of things anymore.

The Pope is the head of the Vatican city/state.

I would prefer to see the Pope minding the nuclear weapons of many other states. He would never attack anyone, thou shalt not kill etc., etc.

 

[Betterave]

To answer the question: obviously it’s possible that a pope could be guilty of human rights violations, but this possibility has zero bearing on infallibility.

It sure is interesting to see how dumbfoundingly assinine these great champions of atheism can be, fighting, supposedly, under the aegis of reason! (I thought they’d be above such a dumb stunt - I still hold out hope that they’ve been misquoted or something.) It’s comforting to see we have some more reasonable atheists present here.

 

[TheAtheist]

How do you figure? What state is he the head of???

The Pope isn’t just some religious leader. he’s the head of state of a sovereign nation.

Vatican City is a landlocked sovereign city-state whose territory consists of a walled enclave within the city of Rome, the capital city of Italy. It has an area of approximately 44 hectares (110 acres) (0.44 km2), and a population of just over 800

“He” (quotations because i’m talking more about an office than a person) and the Dalai Lama share the distinction of being the last two theocrats left on the planet. The only difference is that the Dalai Lama lost his territory.

Which means by international treaty, the man in question has a number of rights associated with his position as head of state. You don’t believe me? The libyan dictator Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (the guy who backed the Lockerbie bomber) gave a speech about a year ago at the UN.

He’s a criminal. He’s responsible for the deaths of not only those passengers but a whole lot of people in his own country. And he was on American soil…and couldn’t be touched.

Because he’s a head of state.

If we could have sent interpol in to arrest Hussein, don’t you think we wold have done that? What keeps us from going in to arrest Kim Jong Il is that he has a lot of soldiers and weapons. Thank goodness popes don’t have those sorts of things anymore.

Last time i checked, every nation (de jure) is still a sovereign power. That means for instance, my President can’t go an arrest the President of Poland for some infraction. Legally - i mean you can coerce and use force and invade the country sure - but legally he has no means of prosecuting him. Two different jurisdictions, two different set of laws, etc. etc. etc.

I can censure someone like Kim Jong Il, i can sanction his whole country. I don’t have a right to put him on trial because we have no court, no legally body that we can properly agree upon as being the appropriate arbiter.

So - that means the only thing i can do is wage war on the man. And by definition, War is a Breakdown of Law. Besides, even if i’m 100% wrong, if i win i can invoke whatever principles i see fit to put the loser on trial.

So what happens in this case? let’s say the Pope is found guilty of human rights violations? (let’s just bypass the legal matter of who gets to hear the case)

Ooohh… Whoopdedoo. Who gets to put the cuffs on him? The Italians? Please. The French? An EU representative?

Hey, maybe Richard will do it.

You know, this really really really hurts my head. We’re supposed to be the Rationalists right? I mean, beyond a bit of grandstanding on Richard’s part, not a single thing will change.

And irritatingly enough, the ones who got hurt, the ones who got raped by the pedophile priests, will get lost in the shuffle. The lion’s share of attention should be on them and those who violated their persons.

It shouldn’t be collapsed into the broader (and perennial) intramural between atheists and the religious.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Not just Christianity either; buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,9048,0,0,1,0

msnbc.msn.com/id/35944804/

I could find other examples, but suffice to say that bad people do bad things, and other bad people try to cover them up. Ho hum… nothing new in that. The only difference I see is that the media and leftists (is that oxymoronic?) love to attack the Roman Catholic church, it’s their favourite punching bag.

Love to attack the Roman Catholic Church? Favourite punching bag?

I’m not so sure about those very blanket statements.

I can bring up many examples of horrid crimes from all sorts of religions and crimes involving no religion whatsoever.

Are you sure you are being fair yourself in your assesment?

 

[mrhenrik]

As for actually sending him to trial - he’s a freakin head of state! Even with the existence of the Hague, there’s no court that can legitimately try a head of state on the basis of human rights violations. Much less enforce it, otherwise we would have Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein out of power by sending Interpol over. Heck, 1/2 of Europe would have probably done the same to last American president.

He’s not head of a state recognised by the UN, so that should have little effect in the UK. I’m quite sure Haag can try a head of state - isn’t there an arrest order out on the president of Sudan? I hope you’re joking with the Saddam Hussein part - he was arrested, tried in court and executed years ago. You can’t just walk into North Korea to arrest Kim Jong Il, for starters it’s fairly politically tense on that subject in some areas still, and there’s also a massive army defending him.

I wonder if this will go through. Dawkins and his mate seems to have a somewhat decent case going, in which case it will either go through or be crushed down by someone with strong political influence and Catholic interests in Britain.

The case they want to arrest him on is him as a bishop signing a document asking for an American church to consider the greater good of the church before going through with a child abuse case (not accurate quote).

 

[davidv]

He’s not head of a state recognised by the UN, so that should have little effect in the UK. I’m quite sure Haag can try a head of state - isn’t there an arrest order out on the president of Sudan? I hope you’re joking with the Saddam Hussein part - he was arrested, tried in court and executed years ago. You can’t just walk into North Korea to arrest Kim Jong Il, for starters it’s fairly politically tense on that subject in some areas still, and there’s also a massive army defending him.

I wonder if this will go through. Dawkins and his mate seems to have a somewhat decent case going, in which case it will either go through or be crushed down by someone with strong political influence and Catholic interests in Britain.

The case they want to arrest him on is him as a bishop signing a document asking for an American church to consider the greater good of the church before going through with a child abuse case (not accurate quote).

I think you need to study more about the UN. Specifically that of non-member, observer status.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think you need to study more about the UN. Specifically that of non-member, observer status.

I think you need to study more about crimes committed against humanity in an organized fashion.

 

[Thing]

Attacks for many years on this;

Lobby Talk: Targeting Vatican’s U.N. Status
Ron Eckstein
Legal Times, Week of August 16, 1999

Reproductive rights groups have never had to look very far to find adversaries: From local school boards to state legislatures to congressional foes, there are plenty of forces with which they are at odds at any given time.

But a D.C.-based coalition of abortion-rights organizations is campaigning on a new front that at best seems quixotic and at worst risks alienating large numbers of sympathizers.

A collection of more than 250 groups from around the world is lobbying to change the diplomatic rank of the Vatican at the United Nations. They seek to downgrade the Holy See, as the governing body of the Catholic Church is known at the United Nations, from its extraordinary status as a “nonmember state observer” to the more routine level of a nongovernmental organization (NGO).

The coalition’s roster is heavy on women’s health and reproductive rights advocates, but also includes a variety of religious, human rights, and AIDS groups. Through mass mailings, grass-roots organizing, and education efforts, they are striving to persuade world leaders that the Vatican’s stature is undeserved.

In its current capacity, the Holy See may participate in debate at the United Nation’s General Assembly, just like the world body’s 185 member nations, and may vote at its policy-setting international conferences; NGOs may do neither of these things. Coalition members, which vehemently oppose the Vatican’s stances on contraception and abortion, contend that the Church’s observer status affords it undue influence in secular political decisions.

“The time has come to challenge this facade of the Vatican as a state,” says Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, the Washington-based nonprofit organization spearheading what it has dubbed the “See Change” campaign. “Why should an entity that is in essence 100 square acres of office space and tourist attractions in the middle o Rome, with a citizenry that excludes women and children, have a place at the table where governments set policies? If the Vatican is a state, then EuroDisney deserves a place on the Security Council.”

The United Nations recognizes only one other nonmember state observer, Switzerland, alongside its 185 member nations. All other Christian sects, as well as the other major faiths, are represented among the more than 1,500 NGOs recognized by the United Nations. They all can contribute information at U.N. conferences but have no vote on U.N. policy.

So while the See Change advocates a separation of church and state, the central question is whether the Vatican is a state.

The campaign’s supporters argue that an entity must possess four things to be considered a state: a defined territory, a government, the capacity to enter into relations with other states, and a permanent population. While they don’t believe the Vatican truly satisfies any of these criteria, they take particular issue with the last item. Members note that Vatican City, less than half a square kilometer in size, has no permanent citizenry, but rather represents Catholics who are citizens of other countries.

The Holy See’s defenders laugh off assertions that the Vatican is anything but a state.

“The Vatican has been trading diplomats since the fourth century and now has diplomatic relations with 176 member states of the U.N.,” counters Austin Ruse, director of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, a group based in New York City that lobbies the United Nations on abortion and conservative family issues. “The Vatican has territory and represents people all over the world. The Catholic Church and the Holy See speak for Catholicism and nobody else does.”

The See Change campaign is urging U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to conduct an official review of the Vatican’s status at the United Nations and, ultimately, to change it. But even supporters acknowledge that the campaign doesn’t have the slightest chance of success. The majority of member states would have to vote for a resolution downgrading the Holy See’s status, something that has never been attempted.

“We have had delegations from other countries say they are glad we are doing this because they couldn’t” Kissling says. “We don’t realistically expect any government to pick a fight with the Pope. What we hope to do is cause some political leaders to speak out on this question and to keep the Vatican in check and be more cautious.”

So far, only one public official, British Secretary of State for International Development Clare Short, has spoken out in support of the campaign.

The Vatican has participated in U.N. activities since the international body was set up in 1945, originally participating in conferences as part of the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunications Union, since it issues stamps and runs a radio station. The United Nations invited the unions and their members to attend sessions on an ad hoc basis, and as a result a Vatican delegation began attending meetings of the General Assembly, the World Health Organization, and other U.N. organizations in 1951 as an observer.

The Vatican’s U.N. delegation officially became known as the Holy See in 1957, and received permanent observer status from Secretary General U Thant in 1964. Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II have addressed the General Assembly.

“This is just not the status a religion—and particularly one so out of touch with public sentiment—should hold,” Kissling says. “What is the right role for religion in the public policy process?”

 

[Thing]

…cont.

The current See Change campaign is the second incarnation of the effort to downgrade the Holy See’s U.N. status. Women’s health organizations first circulated a petition questioning whether the Vatican’s standing was appropriate during the U.N.’s 1995 Beijing conference on women. Kissling said close to 10,000 people signed the petition asking then Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to review the Holy See’s status, but the effort waned and ultimately fell by the wayside.

The movement was revived earlier this year at the five-year anniversary of the U.N.’s Cairo conference on population.

“The Vatican was taking high-profile positions and serving as an obstacle to consensus,” Kissling says. “There was a lot of pressure on us to do something. We are a Catholic organization that has had a strong role in U.N. conferences in this decade.”

The See Change campaign gained momentum during the Kosovo crisis, after the Holy See argued against the distribution of emergency contraception to Kosovo refugees who had been raped. In May, a spokeswoman for the Vatican said the “day-after pill is not permitted by Catholic morality because it is abortive. A murder does not become less grave because of the circumstances in which it takes place.” That prompted outrage from family planning and women’s rights advocates; groups fired off news release after news release, calling the Vatican callous and out of touch for making dogma more important than easing human suffering.

Defenders of the Church’s position claimed that it was the other side that had lost perspective.

“Only organizations driven by fanaticism would think [people] being victimized by Slobodan Milosevic are in dire need of condoms,” William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said at the time. “What these people need is precisely what Catholic Relief Services offers, namely food, clothing, shelter, and medicinal supplies.”

The Kosovo fallout, supporters of the See Change campaign believe, demonstrates precisely why there should be a strict separation between theology and policy at the United Nations.

“The Holy See is the only religious entity in the U.N. as a state. To ensure that the U.N. does not promote one particular religion, entities such as the Roman Catholic Church should be permitted to participate in this forum as nongovernmental organizations, not as nonmember states,” says Anika Rahman, director of the international program at the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in New York City.

Donohue doesn’t buy this.

“There are certainly theocratic states other than the Holy See which are members of the General Assembly: England, Sweden, Israel,” he says.

And defenders of the Holy See claim that NGO status would not be appropriate.

“NGOs are not related to a specific governance, and they are specific to one issue,” explains Bishop James McHugh of Rockville Centre, N.Y., an adjunct member of the Holy See mission to the United Nations. “The Holy See is the governing body of the Catholic Church and is active on all issues.”

Of the roughly 250 organizations to endorse the See Change campaign, roughly 60 percent are in North America or Europe, Kissling says. The National Organization for Women and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America are the best known of these.

The campaign itself is a grass-roots education and letter-writing endeavor. Catholics for a Free Choice has sent mailings to its supporters containing a postcard to be sent to Secretary-General Annan. Bulk mailings have been sent to the other organizations to pass on to their supporters. Booths have also been set up at various events, such as concerts, to dispense postcards to the public.

Kissling does not want to speculate on how many postcards have been sent out until the campaign ends, probably in about a year.

There is currently no fund-raising component, with all of the necessary money coming from the capital of Catholics for a Free Choice. The group is paying the salary of one full-time employee and a couple of part-time workers to help out with the See Change campaign.

Paid advertisements are being considered for a number of liberal and women’s magazines, and newspaper ads may coincide with the U.N. General Assembly’s meetings in September. Members of the coalition are starting to work on recruiting high-profile actors, writers, and musicians to become spokespersons for the campaign.

Knowing that the See Change Campaign has almost no chance of success, the Vatican will not launch a counter campaign. Those friendly to the Holy See, however, are ripping into Catholics for a Free Choice.

Bishop McHugh says “at least two committees of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have made statements opposing Catholics for a Free Choice, calling them a small and radical group which only speaks for itself.”

Donohue, of the Catholic League, calls the group “an enemy of the Church” and a “front group for anti-Catholic activists.” He says his group may write op-ed pieces for newspapers, but is unlikely to raise money to fight for the Holy See.

“We have learned there isn’t much chance of this happening, so we haven’t put many resources into this,” Donohue says.

The Catholic League is asking its 350,000 members to write the United Nations and ask it to revoke the NGO status of Catholics for a Free Choice.

“From its inception, Catholics for a Free Choice has misrepresented itself as a Catholic organization. To be a Catholic and lobby for abortion is as incongruous as it would be for a Catholic to lobby for slavery,” Donohue says. "It is time for the U.N. to give Kissling the boot:’

Kissling takes the criticism in stride: "The kind of people who tend to say those types of things are not priests or bishops, they are ultra-conservative Catholic lay people who have no moral authority in the Church to say Who is a Catholic and who is not.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Stop mentioning Donohue, as it does not help your cause regarding human rights.
Ask the man to step up to the plate and reply here.

He is arguing that 13 year olds can consent to Father’s overtures, simply because he is very opposed to Father being labled as a ped.

Face facts. He is attempting to redefine the law on this.

I welcome his personal reply, or Karl Keating’s reply or any other practicing attorney.

 

[Thing]

Stop mentioning Donohue, as it does not help your cause regarding human rights.
Ask the man to step up to the plate and reply here.

He is arguing that 13 year olds can consent to Father’s overtures, simply because he is very opposed to Father being labled as a ped.

Face facts. He is attempting to redefine the law on this.

I welcome his personal reply, or Karl Keating’s reply or any other practicing attorney.

If you are following this thread you will gather that the posts are about the Pope and the Vaticans status in the UN as a State, and I pointed to the attacks for at least the last 15 years by several hundred groups to remove the Vatican State from the UN. This status of the Vatican as a State is being argued as the only impediment to arresting the Pope.
I neither know nor care anything for someone called Donohue.