Should the Pope be held liable for full knowledge negligence in clergy scandal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven_Merten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steven_Merten

Guest
A while back, I remember reading how a Vatican official was begging Condolisa Rice to have the Administration intervene and stop civil courts from trying to sue the Vatican. Rice assured the Vatican that they could not be brought to trial because of dipolmatic immunity.

What did the Popes (Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI) know and when did they know it? Why did the Pope, if he did have full knowledge, not warn the world of the bishop actions of intentionally exposing young children to known sexual predetors? Did the Pope himself really write a papal memo implying to bishops to secretly move sexual predetor priests from one unknowing group of victims to the next (the smoking gun that trial lawyers would love to put the Pope on trial, having him swear to God that his testamony is true, to find)

Should the Pope be outside of the justice system through diplomatic immunity?

Should victims be compensated by the Vatican through law suits, if the Pope admits, under oath, that he has wronged them?
 
Steven Merten:
Should the Pope be outside of the justice system through diplomatic immunity?
Click to expand...
No.
Steven Merten:
Should victims be compensated by the Vatican through law suits, if the Pope admits, under oath, that he has wronged them?
Click to expand...
Of course. Don’t we all have an obligation to correct wrongs when we have the opportunity?
 
Steven Merten:
Should the Pope be outside of the justice system through diplomatic immunity?
Click to expand...
All heads of State retain that immunity, and properly so.

If a Head of State is to be prosecuted, that MUST go through a comptent body, such as The Hague.
Should victims be compensated by the Vatican through law suits, if the Pope admits, under oath, that he has wronged them?
Click to expand...
How about just plain asking the Pope if it’s true?
 
40.png
Brendan:
How about just plain asking the Pope if it’s true?
Click to expand...
‘lying for Christ’.

Having watched the evolution/creation debate for a long time I know some people do this easily. The temptations are must be proportionately greater for a person with more power. Luckily the Lord has provisioned us each with enough resources to resist the tempations we face.
 
40.png
Brendan:
How about just plain asking the Pope if it’s true?
Click to expand...
Hello Brendan,

I was supprized not to hear the Pope swear to God and the world that he knew nothing of the Boston clergy abuse or any clergy child abuse until the Boston Globe brought it to his attention. And then of course a great big thank you from the Pope to the Boston Globe for bringing about this new unrgency in the council of Catholic bishops to now protect our children and awareness to parents to protect their children.

You would think the Pope would just automatically realize that such a statement would be in order? Unless he was guilty.
 
40.png
Brendan:
All heads of State retain that immunity, and properly so.
Click to expand...
I do not automatically aline the Vicar of Christ’s chair with heads of States. Should I? Should I expect nothing more, when it comes to justice, from a Pope than I do from a head of State?
 
The Pope wasn’t Pope in the 60’s and 70’s when these things were happening.

If you are the CEO of a company and 1 of your employees violates a law it is his liablility not yours. Even if you protect his guilt somehow, he is still the one who is guilty. If you change your policy to promote his illegal behavior, then you too are liable.
 
40.png
buffalo:
The Pope wasn’t Pope in the 60’s and 70’s when these things were happening.

If you are the CEO of a company and 1 of your employees violates a law it is his liablility not yours. Even if you protect his guilt somehow, he is still the one who is guilty. If you change your policy to promote his illegal behavior, then you too are liable.
Click to expand...
Hello buffalo,

If you are the CEO of a company and 1 of your employees comes in and rapes, beats and murders your secratary right in front of your eyes, and you do not warn authorities of what you saw. You are culpable? Maybe not of murder but guilty of neglegence.

Even if the Pope himself did not move clergy sexual predetors from one unsuspecting group of child victims to the next, if he had full knowledge and did nothing to stop such evil, he like the CEO, is culpable. Maybe not in criminal court but certianly in civil court.
 
Some of the posts here are borderline. Keep your comments charitable or the thread will be closed.
 
I found the article. I guess it was Pope Benedict XVI and not Pope John Paul II as I was thinking.
**BENEDICT XVI NAMED AS A DEFENDANT IN AN AMERICAN LAWSUIT **
traditioninaction.org/bev/070bev09-07-2005.htm
  • There is a recent follow-up to the lawsuit against Pope Benedict XVI accusing him of covering up the sexual abuse of three children in Houston, Texas. Representatives of the Pope asked President George Bush to confirm that Benedict XVI benefits from juridical immunity as the Head-of-State of the Vatican. If immunity is granted, the Pope is exempt from liability as a defendant…
**…1. **On May 18, 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote a letter to the Catholic Bishops on how to handle sacramental and moral abuses that were occurring in the Church. Some who read the letter say that it dealt with the Sacraments and the sexual abuse of minors by priests and ecclesiastical persons; others say that it dealt only with canonical problems regarding the Sacraments.
In any case, the media report that when the letter referred to ecclesiastic trials of priests charged with the sexual abuse of minors, it ordered that “cases of this kind are subjected to the pontifical secret” (*Houston Voice *online, August 29, 2005). That is to say, it asserted the Church’s right to hold inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential. Breaching the pontifical secret carries serious penalties.
 
The problem I have with the suing of archdioceses for covering up the alleged abuses, is that without fail, almost every single case in our area is about priests that are dead. That is problematical for me.

I also know that there was not one priest who was responsible for the abuse was ever in our community. I also know that our community raised a whole bunch of money and built a new building. The archdiocese paid nothing. Yet those who sue are trying to say the church needs to sell off holdings, like our church to pay for the wrong the church leadership has done.

So, my church, my family, and my community has to pay for it? And this teaches what lesson to the leaders of the Church? How is this fair? Those who are suing say they are trying to “teach the Church a lesson” and “it’s not about the money”. Well, I am truly trying to see how making my community church be sold, built with community money is teaching church leadership anything. The Church leadership is not paying the money, my family and community is. Yet when this is pointed out, “someone needs to pay” but it’s not about the money?

People who are trying to make the Church pay for the wrong decisions, ultimately are making ME pay for those decisions.

And let’s talk about the “cover up”. **In our area, most of the cases involved are in the 60’s and 70’s. **The Church, going on the best advice available at the time, would treat these priests, and then send them back out to a new church because the experts said they were cured. Of course we now know there is no cure. But the Church in good faith, believed the doctors who were treating these priests.

Do the people want to sue the doctors who “cured” the priests and sent them back out there? No. Why not? Why not “teach those doctors a lesson”?

This is an unpleasant subject at best. Emotions run very high on this issue. I in no way mean to further hurt anyone who has been harmed by someone who should have protected them. But right now, those who were hurt, by there continuing desire to “teach the leadership a lesson”, have placed a horrible burden on me and my family and every Catholic family out there who faithfully supports the Church.
 
40.png
MariaG:
The problem I have with the sueing of archdioceses for covering up the alleged abuses, is that without fail, almost every single case in our area is about priests that are dead. That is problematical for me.

I also know that even though there was not one priest that was ever in our community. I also know that our community raised a whole bunch of money and built a new building. The archdiocese paid nothing. Yet those who sue are trying to say the church needs to sell off holdings, like our church to pay for the wrong they have done.

So, my church, my family, and my community has to pay for it? And this teaches what lesson to the leaders of the Church? How is this fair? Those who are suing say they are trying to “teach the Church a lesson” and “it’s not about the money”. Well, I am truly trying to see how stealing my community church is teaching church leadership anything. The Church leadership is not paying the money, my family and community is. Yet when this is pointed out, “someone needs to pay” but it’s not about the money?

People who are trying to make the Church pay for the wrong decisions, ultimately are making ME pay for those decisions.
Click to expand...
Hello MariaG,

When someone is sued who do you think usually pays? I would find it hard to believe that the majority of the money does not come from insurance companies, (we the premium payers). When the city is sued, again (we the tax payers).

Actually if the Pope had to move out of the Vatican, in order to pay victims, even though the Vatican is not his possession per say, Popes would be very careful not to do something which harms the people in the future, while they are working from their rented space in a office building or strip mall.
 
40.png
MariaG:
And let’s talk about the “cover up”. In our area, most of the cases involved are in the 60’s and 70’s. The Church, going on the best advice available at the time, would treat these priests, and then send them back out to a new church because the experts said they were cured. Of course we now know there is no cure. But the Church in good faith, believed the doctors who were treating these priests.

Do the people want to sue the doctors who “cured” the priests and sent them back out there? No. Why not? Why not “teach those doctors a lesson”?
Click to expand...
Hello MariaG,

Yes I have heard that the Church took the advice of the experts. Some of phycologist experts said these priests would be ok with children. However, Vatican lawyer experts, as I am told, told Church leaders that they had better have a tremendous amount of money for law suits should they continue to put “rehabilitated” sexual predetor priests in unprotected contact with children.

Are not Church leaders being a little selective on which experts they claim to put all the blame on?

Do we all agree that they should have followed the advice of their lawyers? Where is all the money that their lawyers advised them to have should they choose the path they infact did choose to follow? Did not the Church “in good faith” believe their lawyers who deal with these issues daily? Did Church leaders simply rely on their untouchable status of the old days to disregard the advice of their lawyers?
 
Steven Merten:
Hello MariaG,

Yes I have heard that the Church took the advice of the experts. Some of phycologist experts said these priests would be ok with children. However, Vatican lawyer experts, as I am told, told Church leaders that they had better have a tremendous amount of money for law suits should they continue to put “rehabilitated” sexual predetor priests in unprotected contact with children.

Are not Church leaders being a little selective on which experts they claim to put all the blame on?

Do we all agree that they should have followed the advice of their lawyers? Where is all the money that their lawyers advised them to have should they choose the path they infact did choose to follow? Did not the Church “in good faith” believe their lawyers who deal with these issues daily? Did Church leaders simply rely on their untouchable status of the old days to disregard the advice of their lawyers?
Click to expand...
You are surprised a group of Christians choose to believe the experts who believed that repentant priests had been rehabilitated instead of the lawyers who were concerned about money:confused:

Looks to me as if they choose the Christian path of forgiveness and choose to not listen to the experts whose only concern seemed to be money.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Steven Merten:
Hello MariaG,

When someone is sued who do you think usually pays? I would find it hard to believe that the majority of the money does not come from insurance companies, (we the premium payers). When the city is sued, again (we the tax payers).

Actually if the Pope had to move out of the Vatican, in order to pay victims, even though the Vatican is not his possession per say, Popes would be very careful not to do something which harms the people in the future, while they are working from their rented space in a office building or strip mall.
Click to expand...
The majority of the money. So that makes it okay if only a couple of communities Churches have to be sold even though the local community was the one to pay for all that property?

And who would have to pay for that rented space?

Those who continue to go after money on these suits ultimately are not punishing anyone but the average faithful Catholic family. Their inability to acknowledge that the main loser is not the leadership in the Church but Joe Catholic and family is significant.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Steven Merten:
A while back, I remember reading how a Vatican official was begging Condolisa Rice to have the Administration intervene and stop civil courts from trying to sue the Vatican.
Click to expand...

That is such a temptation to cynicism… 😦​

Rice assured the Vatican that they could not be brought to trial because of dipolmatic immunity.

What did the Popes (Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI) know and when did they know it? Why did the Pope, if he did have full knowledge, not warn the world of the bishop actions of intentionally exposing young children to known sexual predetors? Did the Pope himself really write a papal memo implying to bishops to secretly move sexual predetor priests from one unknowing group of victims to the next (the smoking gun that trial lawyers would love to put the Pope on trial, having him swear to God that his testamony is true, to find)

Should the Pope be outside of the justice system through diplomatic immunity?
Click to expand...

No - the King of Kings was not above submitting to Roman justice and a Roman cross: so who is His vicar, to be better off ?​

If the Pope “does not only have the office of inspection and direction,” but enjoys “full and supreme power of jurisdiction, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and governance of the Church dispersed throughout the world”, then he cannot really decline responsibility for those over whom he exercises this authority. If he has that position, it can’t be a place of privilege - it has to be a place of responsibility. Claiming the former & forgetting the latter is something the Jews tended constantly to do - the Papacy is no different. To decline the responsibility that comes with the claims one insists on making is not Christian; and would make a mockery of the title “servant of the servants of God.” We are not to do it - we have to answer for our failings, and rightly: the Pope can hardly not be as answerable. ##
Should victims be compensated by the Vatican through law suits, if the Pope admits, under oath, that he has wronged them?
Click to expand...

Two points:​

  1. Cases have to be decided on their merits
  2. If it’s pointed out that the principle “the first see is judged by none” is as old as the 490s or so, that did not stop Leo III taking an oath of compurgation to establish his innocence of various crimes over 300 years later. Maybe that’s a solution.
What IMO is insufferable is that the bishop with the most responsibility for his fellows, should be the best-protected against the evil effects of his policies. Peter was not commanded to domineer over his brethren - domination was explicitly forbidden by Jesus. Not taking responsibility, is too much like domination ##
 
I have nothing but sympathy for the victims of those who have so besmirched the priesthood, and who, Dante tells us, are destined for the bottommost pit of Hell.

But this “sue the Church” idea is a whole different agenda. How will bankrupting the Church help anybody?

It wasn’t only the Church who took the advice of psychiatrists and psychologists. Our government, and I’m sure many others, simply moved pedophile teachers to another government school after the experts said they were “cured”. But there’s a terrible double standard. If you were sexually abused by a teacher in a government school, tough luck. The teacher is probably interstate or overseas and no-one can trace him. And the government has actually passed a special law saying that you CAN’T sue the government for placing pedophiles in charge of you. We don’t want the good old taxpayers to have to fork out, do we?

But if your abuse was by a Catholic priest or brother, you stand to gain. Even if he is interstate or overseas or it is decades later, the Church is very likely to be able to tell you exactly where he is. And even if he has died you can still sue the Church, as if the whole Church is responsible. Because everyone knows the Church has billions and billions just stashed away doing nothing, right?

The only people who stand to gain from this are militant atheists who get a perverse pleasure from seeing Catholic churches and charitable institutions forced to close - the same churches and institutions which in many cases were built out of the pennies our parents and grandparents faithfully put on the plate every week, even though they couldn’t afford it, right through Depressions, wars and other hardships as they struggled to provide for large families.
 
Steven Merten:
I was supprized not to hear the Pope swear to God…
Click to expand...
We should not to swear to God. Jesus says, let your yes mean yes and your no mean no:
“But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God’s throne;nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.” MT 5:34-37
 
The answer is simply no, this is yet another attempt to defame Benedict XVI, and this is just simply the left’s way of lashing out at the Church.
 
Steven Merten:
Hello buffalo,

If you are the CEO of a company and 1 of your employees comes in and rapes, beats and murders your secratary right in front of your eyes, and you do not warn authorities of what you saw. You are culpable? Maybe not of murder but guilty of neglegence.

Even if the Pope himself did not move clergy sexual predetors from one unsuspecting group of child victims to the next, if he had full knowledge and did nothing to stop such evil, he like the CEO, is culpable. Maybe not in criminal court but certianly in civil court.
Click to expand...
If the Pope learns of this and then gathers the Bishops and tells them in no uncertain terms this has to stop etc… does this satisfy his requirements?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top