Should the Pope be made accountable in a court of law

[imasinner]

LOL… I believe that you are confused. “Many Catholics” are not trying to defend the indefensible. Instead “many Catholics” are keeping everything in prospective. You, the media, and others seem to be of the opinion that the Church is filled with child-molesting priests. The “many Catholics” on the other hand recognize that the problem is not as huge as “the few” might like to believe. Sure, there are lots of accusations, the media is also relentless at finding a story in every possible parish, and many anti-Catholics love to point their fingers at these stories and accusations (whether they be based in fact or not) and cry, “BEHOLD, the whore of Babylon!” But, for the “Many Catholics” we know, understand, and trust that God will protect His Church. That not all who have come forward to accuse priests are being honest. That the VAST majority of Catholic priests are NOT molesters. For those few who have been found guilty of these horrible offenses, they should be punished.

Thank you for your thoughts. I need to put things into perspective as you say.

LOL… interesting slip?

No! I was MORTIFIED when I realised my mistake.

 

[rick43235]

…for the systematic cover-up of sexual abuse by some priests in the Church? I was wondering whether Catholics would like to see the Pope defend himself in a court of law against the allegations leveled at him and the Church through the media.

How many other predatory sexual perverts dressed as priests are still serving in the Church with full knowledge of their bishop? Are the bishops listening to the Pope and turning them in to the local authorities? They need not wait for a complaint from a victim, they would know who they are through Confession.

I have no doubt that individual bishops moved predator priests around to keep their crimes hidden and, as a result, exposed other children to danger. Additionally, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the current pope was one of these bishops at some time in the past. That said, I very much doubt that this system of hiding predator priests was official church policy. I also doubt that the pope’s actions were, from a legal standpoint anyway, criminal. Besides, as a head of state, it would be almost impossible to get the pope into court against his will.

 

[JReducation]

…for the systematic cover-up of sexual abuse by some priests in the Church? I was wondering whether Catholics would like to see the Pope defend himself in a court of law against the allegations leveled at him and the Church through the media.

How many other predatory sexual perverts dressed as priests are still serving in the Church with full knowledge of their bishop? Are the bishops listening to the Pope and turning them in to the local authorities? They need not wait for a complaint from a victim, they would know who they are through Confession.

The bold is mine.

Violating the seal of confession is significantly higher on the hierarchy of sins, compared to child sexual abuse. If you think that sexual abuse of a child is high on the ladder of sins, imagine how serious is violating the seal of confession when it ranks four or five rungs above sexual abuse, murder, theft or other horrible sins. No confessor may ever use the information that he hears in the confessional for any purpose. The person who confesses the sin may not be asked to reveal his sin to anyone. If he does this, he does it of his free will, not becaues the confessor orders him to do so.

Using information from the confessional or repeating what I may overhear someone confessing is one of the greatest crimes and most serious sins that can be committed against humanity and against the faith. It is punished by excommunication and the excommunication is not lifted that easily. Let’s not even go there.

We cannot ask Christ to reveal what is meant for his ears alone. The confessor is Christ. If I’m standing on line and I overhear a confession such as this, sexual abuse, I may not repeat it or report it. This information was meant for Christ alone, not for me and for anyone else. If report it I am violating not only the rights of the penitent and the confessor, but I’m also violating the rights of Jesus Christ himself. This is information for his ears only.

If the penitent says that he is sorry, the confessor must absolve and forget. These people rarely confess this sin, because they don’t see it as a sin. Even if you have heard it in cofession, you must forget and never give any indication that you know anything. If you’re just walking by and you overhear, the moral law applies to you too. This right is protected by laws in almost every country around the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lycorth]

No man may judge the pope, no matter his crime (or alleged crime). The pope is the vicar of Christ and the head of state of the Vatican; to make him subject to a tribunal is to make the entire Church as an institution and a religion subject to secular tribunals and authorities.

The sex abuse scandal is horrible and Pope Benedict’s actions are less than stellar in some instances, but the media is also presenting their side of the story, not the pope’s. Furthermore, there have been actual crimes committed by popes in the Church’s history; ages past are full of saints and sinners of both extremes. Leo X comes to mind right off the bat, and he was both saint and sinner…

The Vicar of Christ is not to be judged by secular authorities, for amongst all the possible dangers of this comes the very real danger of making the entire Catholic religion vulnerable to secular power. What a fine trick the devil has played to turn our healthy desire for justice against the Church!

Be on your guard.

 

[Jermosh]

A UN International Criminal tribunal.

That’s where they tried Sobodan Milosevic. ( He’d been a head of state)

Could be, but there is issues with that. Lets say what the pope did in the past is true, what law did he break? Yes he could be liable for a civil suit, but I dont think the UN covers that.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I have no doubt that individual bishops moved predator priests around to keep their crimes hidden and, as a result, exposed other children to danger. Additionally, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the current pope was one of these bishops at some time in the past. That said, I very much doubt that this system of hiding predator priests was official church policy. I also doubt that the pope’s actions were, from a legal standpoint anyway, criminal. Besides, as a head of state, it would be almost impossible to get the pope into court against his will.

Again, I ask, what proof do you have that the current pope knew that a crime was being committed and did not report it to proper authorities.

My understanding, as you say yourself, were kept very secret. There is some amount of plausible deniability, I think.

 

[JReducation]

I’m wondering if those who are proposing that the Pope be put on trial understand several points here.

1. Secret: When the Church keeps secrets, 99.9% of the time it is not done so with the intent to do harm, but to avoid what authorities consider a catastrophe. It’s a prudential judgment. In this particular situation, it proved to be the least prudential.
2. Secret again: Every family, every organization, every nation and every person, has a right to have secrets. We seem obsessed with transparency. But if truth be told, there is no such thing as 100% transparency, thank God. There are some things that are not for general information. Why would someone want the world to know that his hor her spouse cheated?
3. Protection of minoirs: I recently heard some very disturbing news. After all of this stuff about the Church and cover ups etc, Planned Parenthood has asked the courts not to oblige them to report sexual abuse of minors, because doing so may prevent pregnant girls from seeking “reproductive healthcare”. If you’re pregnant and you want healthcare, you go to an OB/GYN. If you’re pregnant and you go to Planned Parenthood, you want an abortion. That’s not healthcare. There are now recorded instances when the courts have given Planned Parenthood a pass on this one. If a minor comes in impregnated by an adult. it may not have to be reported to the police. That adult is now free to impregnate another minor.
4. Time: The way that these cases were managed 20 to 50 years ago was very much a product of the time. People believed that you could rehabilitate a sexual deviant. They believed it in good faith, both the clergy and the mental health community. What they did not see, until years later, is that the sexual deviant is unlike other mental health patients. He is mentally ill, but he is very astute and will show you what you want to see. So you discharge. Years later you find that patient is in trouble again. There is a lapse of time between the treatment that you thought had worked and the moment yoyu realize that it did not work. It is not as if the bishops and therapists conspired to let sexual offenders loose on society. They believed they had fixed the problem. Things have to be put into a proper historical context. When the Church realizes that this does not work, Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger decide to change the method of dealing with the problem.

Whether or not the Cardinal knew whatever it is that people say he knew, is not very clear. But what cannot be denied is that when he and the pope realize that there are not solutions for this problem other than to discipline and report, they change the system and the policies. The press actually helped back in 2001. By putting all the cases on the table, it helped the Vatican realize that the attempts made to fix the problem had failed and something had to be done.

What seems very unfair is to want to arrest someone who admits that the solutions that were tried did not work, but made a genuine attempt to bring the problem to the attention of his boss, Pope John Paul II, and volunteered to try something else.

If the Cardinnal had known, if the Cardinal had not borught the failure of the system to the attention of his boss, if the Cardinal had left things the way they were, then he would be guilty of grave moral negligence. But this is not the way that thing happened.

I’m not so sure that those who want to arrest the Pope understand this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF