Byron wrote:There's no such thing as "international law" in this context (it's a concept, not a legal code). There's the ICC treaty, and whatever laws Germany has passed. (The USA hasn't signed up to the ICC, & there's no UN court with the jurisdiction to try Benedict.) As Germany clearly has a functioning legal system competent to try the Pope, the ICC isn't really relevant, and for anything to happen, Germany would have to initiate proceedings against Benedict, and Britain would have to have some domestic law that authorized his arrest. (When Pinochet was nicked, a Spanish judge, Baltasar Garzón, issued an arrest warrant, and we had a law on the books, which I referenced earlier.)

Even at the theoretical stage -- which, as we all know, is as far as this ever goes -- the whole concept falls apart.

Sudan never ratified the ICC, but that didn't stop an arrest warrant being issued for President al-Bashir; it'll probably never be acted upon, but then again he's not someone who'll be trying to visit the UK this September.

As such, I don't think the Pope is quite so safe as you think he is.

Matt_B wrote:

Bathynomus Giganteus wrote:The crimes weren't commited inside the vatican. Wasn't Ratziger in Germany when he was covering up the kiddyfiddling?
And the crime he covered up was in the USA. Both are UN countries. International law applies.

There's a lengthy list of the countries in which relevant cases have taken place here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Cath ... by_country

There are plenty of EU members and ICC signatories in there, and a number of cases after when Benny took office as the Pope too. That's not to say that Robertson will be able to string together a case against the Pope and other Vatican officials out of them, but I'm sure he'll have a good go at it.

*Sigh* That's not enough to arrest Ratzinger. You would have to show that he actively conspired to cover up crimes rather than let them be reported to the police. I've already shown how Hitchens and Dawkins made total fools of themselves in claiming he did son in the Kiesle case in California. Ditto for the cases of Murphy in Wisconsin and Teta and Trupia in Arizona - the police had been informed, the criminals had been convicted and all of them had been suspended from ministry. The lengthy bureaucratic process by which a priest is relieved of his vows ("defrocking") is irrelevant to any question of "covering up" crimes, leaving children vulnerable or allowing a criminal to continue to practice as a priest. In ALL of those cases, none of those things happened.

There certainly were some bishops who let criminals continue to act as priests, who hushed up crimes rather than reporting them and who ignored victims. THAT is the scandal. THEY are the ones who need to be pursued. But this baying mob mentality trying to pin this on Ratzinger is getting fucking weird. And totally irrational. As I said, if there is a Pope culpable in this, it's his predecessor: John Paul II. And the guy who dragged him reluctantly to start to do something about this crisis was Cardinal Ratzinger - the very guy this ridiculous screaming mob is now desperately trying to "arrest" and "convict" for imaginary crimes.

Do I see the word RATIONAL at the top of this page? Do I see SKEPTICAL up there as well? I wonder what those words might mean ...

TimONeill wrote:Do I see the word RATIONAL at the top of this page? Do I see SKEPTICAL up there as well? I wonder what those words might mean ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Skepticism

Matt_B wrote:
Sudan never ratified the ICC, but that didn't stop an arrest warrant being issued for President al-Bashir; it'll probably never be acted upon, but then again he's not someone who'll be trying to visit the UK this September.

The warrant is being delivered to the Sudanese government, apparently. If the ICC want to deliver a warrant for the pope's arrest to the Vatican, well, see how that goes.

As such, I don't think the Pope is quite so safe as you think he is.

When Mr al-Bashir has global support, and when his arrest would be political death to any government that marched him off to the cells, then we'll talk.

TimONeill wrote:

Matt_B wrote:

Bathynomus Giganteus wrote:The crimes weren't commited inside the vatican. Wasn't Ratziger in Germany when he was covering up the kiddyfiddling?
And the crime he covered up was in the USA. Both are UN countries. International law applies.

There's a lengthy list of the countries in which relevant cases have taken place here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Cath ... by_country

There are plenty of EU members and ICC signatories in there, and a number of cases after when Benny took office as the Pope too. That's not to say that Robertson will be able to string together a case against the Pope and other Vatican officials out of them, but I'm sure he'll have a good go at it.

*Sigh* That's not enough to arrest Ratzinger. You would have to show that he actively conspired to cover up crimes rather than let them be reported to the police. I've already shown how Hitchens and Dawkins made total fools of themselves in claiming he did son in the Kiesle case in California. Ditto for the cases of Murphy in Wisconsin and Teta and Trupia in Arizona - the police had been informed, the criminals had been convicted and all of them had been suspended from ministry. The lengthy bureaucratic process by which a priest is relieved of his vows ("defrocking") is irrelevant to any question of "covering up" crimes, leaving children vulnerable or allowing a criminal to continue to practice as a priest. In ALL of those cases, none of those things happened.

There certainly were some bishops who let criminals continue to act as priests, who hushed up crimes rather than reporting them and who ignored victims. THAT is the scandal. THEY are the ones who need to be pursued. But this baying mob mentality trying to pin this on Ratzinger is getting fucking weird. And totally irrational. As I said, if there is a Pope culpable in this, it's his predecessor: John Paul II. And the guy who dragged him reluctantly to start to do something about this crisis was Cardinal Ratzinger - the very guy this ridiculous screaming mob is now desperately trying to "arrest" and "convict" for imaginary crimes.

Do I see the word RATIONAL at the top of this page? Do I see SKEPTICAL up there as well? I wonder what those words might mean ...

When did I say that it was enough to arrest Ratzinger? If you must know, I've always been sceptical that he ever will be arrested. Like you say, his personal involvement has never been sufficiently evidenced in any of the cases; unless new material comes to light between now and September it'll be any request for a warrant will be summarily rejected.

However, I'd also note that Robertson's case is almost certainly not based around the letter printed in the New York Times on April 9th. A quick check round the internet will reveal that he'd made some earlier statements with no mention of it, so the basis of his case will be other evidence, quite possibly something that we don't know about yet. Then again, he might just be bluffing, but whether the Pope will want to call that bluff is another question.

Also, I did suggest that Robertson should be looking at other Vatican officials and I'd agree that they might be easier, and more relevant targets. However, they probably won't be making state visits to the UK in September and, consequently, their pursuit will be less headline-grabbing.

Anyway, enjoy your coffee; you sound like you need some.

Byron wrote:

Matt_B wrote:
Sudan never ratified the ICC, but that didn't stop an arrest warrant being issued for President al-Bashir; it'll probably never be acted upon, but then again he's not someone who'll be trying to visit the UK this September.

The warrant is being delivered to the Sudanese government, apparently. If the ICC want to deliver a warrant for the pope's arrest to the Vatican, well, see how that goes.

There's no need. We know exactly where he'll be when the warrant is applied for and it won't be the Vatican.

As such, I don't think the Pope is quite so safe as you think he is.

When Mr al-Bashir has global support, and when his arrest would be political death to any government that marched him off to the cells, then we'll talk.

I fear you think too highly of the Pope. There are rather a lot of people who'd like to see him in the dock, whether he has a case to answer to or not. Besides, what would he have to hide from a fair trial?

Robertson is no mug. Is there anyone here more qualified in his field? Lets hear from them Or are people being armchair lawyers?

Lets hope Robertson's successful.

Matt_B wrote:
I fear you think too highly of the Pope. There are rather a lot of people who'd like to see him in the dock, whether he has a case to answer to or not. Besides, what would he have to hide from a fair trial?

I'm not interested in the Bishop of Rome, either way. I think lowly of politicians, who won't touch this with a barge pole. Even saying that is superfluous.

james1v wrote:Robertson is no mug. Is there anyone here more qualified in his field? Lets hear from them Or are people being armchair lawyers?

Lets hope Robertson's successful.

He seems to think that extraditing UFO enthusiasts who hack into US government files is "cruel and unusual" punishment, under a law passed when we had branding, amputation, transportation, slavery, hanging for theft, and hanging, drawing and quartering on the statute book.

So yeah.

Byron wrote:

Matt_B wrote:
I fear you think too highly of the Pope. There are rather a lot of people who'd like to see him in the dock, whether he has a case to answer to or not. Besides, what would he have to hide from a fair trial?

I'm not interested in the Bishop of Rome, either way. I think lowly of politicians, who won't touch this with a barge pole. Even saying that is superfluous.

james1v wrote:Robertson is no mug. Is there anyone here more qualified in his field? Lets hear from them Or are people being armchair lawyers?

Lets hope Robertson's successful.

He seems to think that extraditing UFO enthusiasts who hack into US government files is "cruel and unusual" punishment, under a law passed when we had branding, amputation, transportation, slavery, hanging for theft, and hanging, drawing and quartering on the statute book.

So yeah.

My large.
So, you dont think sending someone to prison for possibly decades, just for hacking a computer is barbaric/unusual? I do, in fact, i think its fucking barmy! The USA needs to get a grip.

Matt_B wrote:
When did I say that it was enough to arrest Ratzinger? If you must know, I've always been sceptical that he ever will be arrested. Like you say, his personal involvement has never been sufficiently evidenced in any of the cases; unless new material comes to light between now and September it'll be any request for a warrant will be summarily rejected.

There are people on this thread and elsewhere who are baying and hooting as though the evidence for his personal involvement is clear and proven. I'm simply trying to remind people that this is garbage and that this stupid crusade to pin this on Ratzinger is not only evidence that this is more about grandstanding than a genuine concern for justice for the victims but also takes the attention away from the bishops and others who are the real villains here.

However, I'd also note that Robertson's case is almost certainly not based around the letter printed in the New York Times on April 9th. A quick check round the internet will reveal that he'd made some earlier statements with no mention of it, so the basis of his case will be other evidence, quite possibly something that we don't know about yet. Then again, he might just be bluffing, but whether the Pope will want to call that bluff is another question.

Why would a mere London barrister and QC have access to material "that we don't know about yet"? Robertson is working from exactly the same material that everyone else is.

Also, I did suggest that Robertson should be looking at other Vatican officials and I'd agree that they might be easier, and more relevant targets.

Since the jurisdiction for these cases didn't lie with "the Vatican" you won't find many of the villains there. This stuff was handled at the diocesan level until Ratzinger forced John Paul II to make the Vatican begin to take central responsibility in 2001 because many bishops were perpetuating the cover ups that people are complaining about here. Yet somehow Ratzinger is the bad guy?

However, they probably won't be making state visits to the UK in September and, consequently, their pursuit will be less headline-grabbing.

Yes, which is why all this "O, think of the poor little children" shit is getting a bit galling. Most of this babble is simply using child rape cases for some grandstanding and Pope bashing. That's actually a bit sick.

Anyway, enjoy your coffee; you sound like you need some.

I'm perfectly calm thanks. Perhaps a few more people here could calm the fuck down and try to concentrate on the facts, the way rationalists are supposed to. That would make a nice change from the howling hysteria and mob frenzy on this thread.

james1v wrote:
So, you dont think sending someone to prison for possibly decades, just for hacking a computer is barbaric/unusual?

My personal opinion is irrelevant, as is Mr Robertson's. (Tho' mine can be found here, in the RS news & politics forum.) It's the legal suggestion that Mr McKinnon's extradition would violate the English Bill of Rights that was at issue.

TimONeill wrote:There are people on this thread and elsewhere who are baying and hooting as though the evidence for his personal involvement is clear and proven. I'm simply trying to remind people that this is garbage and that this stupid crusade to pin this on Ratzinger is not only evidence that this is more about grandstanding than a genuine concern for justice for the victims but also takes the attention away from the bishops and others who are the real villains here.

I'd have thought that you might have gathered by now that I'm not one of them. Much of this is hardly a case of people being irrational or failing to show sufficient scepticism. Rather, it's just that a usually somewhat reliable source - the New York Times - has made some elementary errors that have been propagated by people who presumably didn't think they had to double check them.

I certainly don't claim to know everything about the cases in question; I'm quite willing to be corrected where I'm wrong and I'd think that you'll find others here are too. So far as I'm concerned, that's rational scepticism; the only people in la la land are those who don't wish to change their minds when confronted with the facts.

Why would a mere London barrister and QC have access to material "that we don't know about yet"? Robertson is working from exactly the same material that everyone else is.

That's just mere speculation on my part, which I thought I made quite clear.

Since the jurisdiction for these cases didn't lie with "the Vatican" you won't find many of the villains there. This stuff was handled at the diocesan level until Ratzinger forced John Paul II to make the Vatican begin to take central responsibility in 2001 because many bishops were perpetuating the cover ups that people are complaining about here. Yet somehow Ratzinger is the bad guy?

There are still some cases in the post-2001 timescale where Vatican involvement in a cover up would have at least been possible, and even in the earlier cases they may have had knowledge of cover ups for some time even if it wasn't their direct responsibility. At least part of the problem would be that any potential villains there will be untraceable. With any other church involved in such a scandal it would be possible to subpoena their headquarters and go through the records, but that's obviously not going to happen here. That Ratzinger has taken steps to reform the Church in the right direction isn't something I'd dispute. However, it could still be an open question as to whether he's done enough and done it at sufficient speed, but that's not something we'll be able to answer satisfactorily unless all records are released.

As far as I'm aware, the implicated Bishops are already being pursued to the full extent of the law. I don't see how any additional cases against the Vatican, fruitless though they're likely to be, are going to detract from those. If anything, it should draw additional attention to them.

Matt_B wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the implicated Bishops are already being pursued to the full extent of the law.

As far as I know, not a single bishop has been arrested/tried for his part in cover-up. Whether that is generally because of statute-of-limitations issues, lack of direct evidence, or what I don't know.

What I do know is that an egregious example, Archbishop Law, was spirited out of the US when it became obvious to the Vatican that Law could be arrested for his explicit part in covering up known rapist priests. However, that decision was made by god-damn John Paul II - not Ratz - and it would be merely gossip to speculate that Ratz had any influence on JPPII's decision to shelter Law from criminal prosecution.

More to the point, not a single bishop/archibishop/cardinal has been told by the Rat to resign for his failure to protect the innocents. All of them who have been implicated should be removed from power by their boss and sent to a seclude monks house to be penitent for the rest of their days (that is, assuming that they cannot be criminally prosecuted for such reasons as I already mentioned.) Any other organization, except mafia, would have long ago forced the resignations of management who had committed such deeds.

Where the cases are recent and the Inquisition/Pope Ratz is aware of any evidence stronger than hearsay, then the only acceptable answer is for the church authorities to perp-walk the offending bishop directly to the secular authorities. But of course, the church has not done so, and has no intention of ever doing so.

The only way the church will do its moral duty by turning over offenders is if forced to by the secular authorities with search warrants and arrest warrants. It is up to people like us, rational people who are not swayed by their churchly veneer of goodness, to keep up the glare of publicity on these corrupt leaders. Secular authorities need to hear that we, the general public, don't give a free pass to the church elders and don't expect them to be treated with deference when they should be treated like any other criminals.

Hitchens idea of arresting the Rat may or may not be legally possible, but it's still great to remind the public that church leaders are part of an evil organization which really cares only for its own survival, not for the good of the flock it supposedly serves. And there may be a trickle-down effect - if they can't nab Ratz, but the pressure is high enough, it may move him to "sacrifice" a few of the more filthy of his bishops to secular justice. Some justice would be better than none, I think.

Edit: changed and expanded a few sentences

Here's one for you:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... TopStories

There are obviously plenty more to come though.

Matt_B wrote:Here's one for you:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... TopStories

There are obviously plenty more to come though.

Well, that's good news. Good news that he is facing charges, I mean. And fabulous that the church higher-ups "accepted" his resignation as bishop - although he's still a priest, they don't take that away from him.

Fucking hypocrite bishop Lahey.

news article wrote:Lahey is known for overseeing a $13-million settlement with about two dozen people who said they had been sexually abused by priests in the community dating back to 1950.

In a news conference announcing the settlement just last month, Lahey said, "I want them to know how terribly sorry we are, how wrong this abuse was, and how we are now attempting to right those wrongs."

So he's terribly sorry, and attempting to right those wrongs, but meanwhile he personally is going to carry on breaking the law, and sinning against his god's commandments and against his solemn priestly vows - because kiddy ass just looks so fine in those porno pictures.

Do you suppose his superior knew, or suspected, that Lahey had kiddy-fiddling desires ? Of course. It would have been something Lahey would have had to confess.

That's why Ratz needs to turn over every single page of Vatican records for the past half-century that have anything to do with rapist priests, rapist bishops, and every one who abetted them. Not that all of them are actually criminals, but we should be the judge of that, not him, thank you.

hotshoe wrote:

Matt_B wrote:Here's one for you:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... TopStories

There are obviously plenty more to come though.

Well, that's good news. Good news that he is facing charges, I mean. And fabulous that the church higher-ups "accepted" his resignation as bishop - although he's still a priest, they don't take that away from him.

Fucking hypocrite bishop Lahey.

news article wrote:Lahey is known for overseeing a $13-million settlement with about two dozen people who said they had been sexually abused by priests in the community dating back to 1950.

In a news conference announcing the settlement just last month, Lahey said, "I want them to know how terribly sorry we are, how wrong this abuse was, and how we are now attempting to right those wrongs."

So he's terribly sorry, and attempting to right those wrongs, but meanwhile he personally is going to carry on breaking the law, and sinning against his god's commandments and against his solemn priestly vows - because kiddy ass just looks so fine in those porno pictures.

Do you suppose his superior knew, or suspected, that Lahey had kiddy-fiddling desires ? Of course. It would have been something Lahey would have had to confess.

That's why Ratz needs to turn over every single page of Vatican records for the past half-century that have anything to do with rapist priests, rapist bishops, and every one who abetted them. Not that all of them are actually criminals, but we should be the judge of that, not him, thank you.

I will go with that.

The assumption that this organisation should remain in existence as a moral authority is what is really going to be under trial.

Given their systemic misinformation and poor record keeping to date (look at the Kiesle case in which in December 1983 a Vatican official writes Oakland to say Kiesle's file can't be found and they should resubmit materials ) asking for records is pandering to a belief that they still have any authority or competence in this matter.

It makes as much sense as asking a Government for some records when the Government has no legal framework to provide records (i.e. no Freedom of Information) - without the Freedom of Information Acts does anyone here honestly think that if you asked a Government for record then you would get anything that was useful to your case ?.

The only trustworthy solution is to use the approach of fraud investigation and take all the records and then work out what is important. It would be a great step forward for humanity to dismantle this pack of cards. It is a relic of a past error.

byofrcs wrote:
The only trustworthy solution is to use the approach of fraud investigation and take all the records and then work out what is important. It would be a great step forward for humanity to dismantle this pack of cards. It is a relic of a past error.

I, for one, would be happy if this current attempt to get an arrest warrant for the Pope fails, if it translates instead into the authorities getting their hands on all the records. Maybe the Rat will trade access to all their records for a UN-UK brokered guarantee that he will be free to travel without fear of being arrested. As I said, I think some justice is better than none.

DanDare wrote:
Geoffrey Robertson is involved

OK, that bit I didn't know.
Bravo!
Even if it fails, it will be a grandstand, AND the opponents will be made to look like idiots.
Fecking excellent.
EDIT: It should be noted that it will most likely fail. The proto-pope's decision was after legal proceedings, so, as disgusting as it was to leave him in place, it wasn't a "cover up" as far as protecting the offender from the law. Explaining that in a public forum like the courts should be highly entertaining tho.

Lion IRC wrote:What possessed any church leader to think that the discovery of a pedophile needed to be covered up for “the greater good”? What a joke. What lack of faith in God!

Indeed, Lion.

I was wondering... does this indicate that the leaders of the Catholic Church are really atheists? Surely they know that what they're doing is wrong, and therefore if there really is a God they will be judged unfavourably by him.

Or is it that they really truly think the "good" thing to do is to protect the name of the Church at the expense of its victims (not that trying to "protect" the Church hasn't backfired on them, of course, but I don't think that was their intention by keeping mum about all the criminal activity).

Your thoughts?

Also, related trivia:
Sydney Morning Herald poll on the issue at hand.