HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Pope Allegedly Sought IMM...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:58 PM

Pope Allegedly Sought IMMUNITY For ABUSE CRIMES Just Before Resigning






We knew something had to be up with the resignation of Pope Benedict. After all, Popes don’t just resign; in fact, this is the first time a Pope has resigned in 600 years. Therefore, the hoopla surrounding this is more than understandable. However, as per usual with the Catholic Church, there seems to be a catch, and, lo and behold, it likely surrounds the infamous abuse scandals that have plagued the church’s image for so long.


It seems that with his resignation announced, the Pope, whose given name is Joseph Ratzinger, has a meeting with the Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano on February 23 to beg for immunity against prosecution for allegations of child sex crimes. Apparently, this hastily arranged meeting, and likely the resignation as well, are the result of a supposed note received by the Vatican from an undisclosed European government that stated that there are plans to issue a warrant for the Pope’s arrest. This letter was allegedly received on February 4, and Ratzinger resigned a week later. Now, there’s no way people can ignore how fishy this is. The first Pope to resign in 600 years does so after panicking about an impending arrest and in the midst of a hastily arranged meeting begging for protection from the Italian government? How they will keep people from connecting the two is beyond me. Chances are, the world will be popping popcorn and steadily watching.



Well, for once, the guy might not get off easy. The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and state calls upon the Italian President to deny help to Ratzinger, and to “not collude in criminality. Let’s just hope that Napolitano does not cave. However, there may be another avenue to make sure the Pope is brought to justice if the Italian President does cave.



It seems that in addition to these alleged attempts by this European government to prosecute, a New York based organization, The Centre for Constitutional Rights, has accused the Pope and his Cardinals of possible crimes against humanity for sheltering pedophile priests. The non-profit legal group has requested an ICC inquiry on behalf of the Survivor’s Network, citing the church’s “long-standing and pervasive system of sexual violence.”


cont'





http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/14/pope-allegedly-sought-immunity-for-abuse-crimes-just-before-resigning/

133 replies, 17958 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 133 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pope Allegedly Sought IMMUNITY For ABUSE CRIMES Just Before Resigning (Original post)
Segami Feb 2013 OP
Arugula Latte Feb 2013 #1
rocktivity Feb 2013 #2
Segami Feb 2013 #4
arcane1 Feb 2013 #36
Agschmid Feb 2013 #62
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #3
OneGrassRoot Feb 2013 #5
JaneyVee Feb 2013 #6
hue Feb 2013 #132
Sheldon Cooper Feb 2013 #7
Segami Feb 2013 #9
Sheldon Cooper Feb 2013 #13
theKed Feb 2013 #29
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #75
theKed Feb 2013 #82
Aerows Feb 2013 #94
loudsue Feb 2013 #102
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #30
tuvor Feb 2013 #11
Bigbluebrush Feb 2013 #34
BainsBane Feb 2013 #43
R. Daneel Olivaw Feb 2013 #78
snagglepuss Feb 2013 #114
hedda_foil Feb 2013 #125
tritsofme Feb 2013 #8
Aerows Feb 2013 #79
tritsofme Feb 2013 #86
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #96
tritsofme Feb 2013 #97
rhett o rick Feb 2013 #117
Politicalboi Feb 2013 #10
Walk away Feb 2013 #121
Whisp Feb 2013 #12
DollarBillHines Feb 2013 #15
NightWatcher Feb 2013 #14
Segami Feb 2013 #16
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2013 #53
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #35
snagglepuss Feb 2013 #113
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2013 #17
cherokeeprogressive Feb 2013 #33
pnwmom Feb 2013 #59
Aerows Feb 2013 #80
cherokeeprogressive Feb 2013 #87
Aerows Feb 2013 #93
LiberalAndProud Feb 2013 #74
Aerows Feb 2013 #95
defacto7 Feb 2013 #98
srican69 Feb 2013 #18
Segami Feb 2013 #20
ananda Feb 2013 #19
ReRe Feb 2013 #73
MissMarple Feb 2013 #21
jsr Feb 2013 #22
Posteritatis Feb 2013 #24
Segami Feb 2013 #25
jsr Feb 2013 #26
DonViejo Feb 2013 #84
glinda Feb 2013 #118
DonViejo Feb 2013 #119
glinda Feb 2013 #122
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #76
defacto7 Feb 2013 #99
Taverner Feb 2013 #111
backscatter712 Feb 2013 #23
rdharma Feb 2013 #27
southernyankeebelle Feb 2013 #28
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #37
Aerows Feb 2013 #83
southernyankeebelle Feb 2013 #106
CoffeeCat Feb 2013 #88
Aerows Feb 2013 #90
southernyankeebelle Feb 2013 #105
KamaAina Feb 2013 #112
sarisataka Feb 2013 #31
Autumn Feb 2013 #38
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #39
Autumn Feb 2013 #41
RKP5637 Feb 2013 #46
sarisataka Feb 2013 #65
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #32
hrmjustin Feb 2013 #40
LiberalAndProud Feb 2013 #42
hrmjustin Feb 2013 #45
LiberalAndProud Feb 2013 #50
hrmjustin Feb 2013 #55
LiberalAndProud Feb 2013 #69
hrmjustin Feb 2013 #70
Bennyboy Feb 2013 #44
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #54
Bennyboy Feb 2013 #60
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #64
Segami Feb 2013 #67
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #68
defacto7 Feb 2013 #100
Drahthaardogs Feb 2013 #47
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #51
I am Ian Feb 2013 #48
Hosnon Feb 2013 #49
DonCoquixote Feb 2013 #52
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #61
eggplant Feb 2013 #56
Stinky The Clown Feb 2013 #57
southern_belle Feb 2013 #58
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2013 #63
nickinSTL Feb 2013 #66
Iwillnevergiveup Feb 2013 #71
Initech Feb 2013 #115
ohheckyeah Feb 2013 #72
Fawke Em Feb 2013 #77
Adsos Letter Feb 2013 #81
lindysalsagal Feb 2013 #85
LiberalAndProud Feb 2013 #89
lindysalsagal Feb 2013 #91
Adsos Letter Feb 2013 #92
Go Vols Feb 2013 #101
progressoid Feb 2013 #103
burrowowl Feb 2013 #104
Skidmore Feb 2013 #107
whathehell Feb 2013 #116
Skidmore Feb 2013 #128
whathehell Feb 2013 #133
lunatica Feb 2013 #108
malaise Feb 2013 #109
KurtNYC Feb 2013 #110
dipsydoodle Feb 2013 #129
dipsydoodle Feb 2013 #130
Matariki Feb 2013 #120
AzDar Feb 2013 #123
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #124
hrmjustin Feb 2013 #126
obxhead Feb 2013 #127
dipsydoodle Feb 2013 #131

Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:59 PM

1. Holy crap.

Pun intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:03 PM

2. Finally, this is making sense

And give him credit for being honest about his resigning for health reasons -- the wrong people have gotten sick of him!


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:06 PM

4. Should these claims come to fruition,

expect some Cardinals, Bishops and Priests to follow suit and bail out also.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:30 PM

36. Who knows? they may even be willing to spill some beans in exchange for leniency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rocktivity (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:30 PM

62. Yup! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:06 PM

3. Thanks for posting this....much appreciated. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:07 PM

5. K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:09 PM

6. This guy is basically the anti-christ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #6)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 06:00 PM

132. Haha! The popes are a succession of anti-christs! Jesus would prob puke to know what they do!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:12 PM

7. I thought Vatican City was a sovereign state.

So long as he remains in the Vatican confines, how can any European arrest warrant be served against him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:26 PM

9. Can the Pope Be Arrested in Connection with the Sexual Abuse Scandal?

I came across this article. The discussion surrounds the accepted premise that the Pope IS the Head Of State.

But.....he resigned. Does that change the legal definition of ' immunity' for the ex-Pope?


April 2010

The sexual abuse scandal surrounding the Catholic Church has taken a new turn in recent weeks with calls for the Pope to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. The Pope is due to visit the UK in September this year and some prominent campaigners and lawyers have argued that he should be arrested in the UK and prosecuted for his role in the cover up of sexual abuse. Alternatively, these campaigners and lawyers say they will seek an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court on charges of crimes against humanity. The leaders of this campaign are eminent people and include Richard Dawkins, the well known Oxford Professor and, shall we say, atheist campaigner, Christopher Hitchens, another promiment atheist author and Geoffrey Robertson QC, a prominent British barrister who was a judge at the Special Court for Sierra Leone (see reports here and here and an article by Richard Dawkins here).

However, this attempt to get the Pope arrested and prosecuted in the UK has no chance of success as such an arrest would be in violation of international law. Likewise, the proposed prosecution by the International Criminal Court is most unlikely to get off the ground and similarly flawed as a matter of international law. However, these proposals raise some interesting issues of international law surrounding the status of the Pope, the Vatican and the Holy See.

The reason the Pope cannot be arrested and prosecuted in the UK is because he is entitled to Head of State immunity. Dawkins and Hitchens are not unaware of this problem. Apparently they have enlisted Geoffrey Robertson QC to provide an opinion stating that the pope is not a head of State and therefore not entitled to head of State immunity. Robertson elaborates on this point in a recent article in the Guardian. Robertson argues that the Pope is not entitled head of State immunity as a matter of international law because the Vatican is not a State. His arguments are simply incorrect. The Vatican has a tiny territory and a tiny population but it does fulfill the criteria for Statehood. As James Crawford puts it, in his authoritative work The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed, 2006), p. 225, after detailed analysis: “it is clear that the Vatican City is a State in international law, despite its size and special circumstances.” The size of population or territory are irrelevant for the purposes of Statehood. What is important is that the entity possesses those criteria as well as the two other criteria for Statehood – which are: a government in effective control of the territory and independence (or what is called “capacity to enter into legal relations” in the words of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1935). The Vatican as a territorial entity does have a government: the Holy See which is headed by the Pope. As Crawford’s analysis makes clear, the Holy See has its own independent legal personality (about which more later on) and that personality predates the Statehood of the Vatican. However, the Holy See is also the government of the Vatican City State. More imporantly, the Vatican is independent of any other State. Its independence from Italy which is the State that could have had claims to control that territory is recognised in the Lateran Treaty of 1929. The preamble to the treaty speaks of:

“assuring to the Holy See in a permanent manner a position in fact and in law which guarantees it absolute independence for the fulfilment of its exalted mission in the world,”

and states that

“in order to assure the absolute and visible independence of the Holy See, it is required that it be guaranteed an indisputable sovereignty even in the international realm, it has been found necessary to create under special conditions Vatican City, recognizing the full ownership and the exclusive and absolute power and sovereign jurisdiction of the Holy See over the same”

Geoffrey Robertson argues that

“The notion that statehood can be created by another country’s unilateral declaration is risible: Iran could make Qom a state overnight, or the UK could launch Canterbury on to the international stage.”

But this misunderstands how States are created. Many States are indeed created by the unilateral declaration of one State. This is how colonialism in Africa and Asia ended. This is how the States in the Commonwealth achieved statehood. They were all granted independence by unilateral declaration – in many cases, by national Statutes – of the colonial powers. Independence means the right to control a portion of a globe without being subject to the legal authority of another entity. The way this is achieved in the case of territories previously under the control of another State, is by that other State renouncing the claims that it has to that territory.

But the independence and Statehood of the Vatican are not created solely by unilateral declaration but are also recognised by other States, indeed by most States of the world. The Vatican is a member of a number of international organizations, including the Universal Postal Union, the International Telecommunications Union and the World Intellectual Property Organization. Although the UPU is open to territorial entities which are not States (see commentary to Art. 1 of the UPU’s constitution), the only territorial entities that may be Members of the ITU and WIPO are States. In addition, the Vatican is party to many multilateral treaties including, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (yes that one) and the 1949 Geneva Conventions on the protection of victims of armed conflict.

So, since the Vatican is a State then the head of that State, the Pope, is entitled to head of State immunity under international law. This immunity is recognised by Section 20 of the UK’s State Immunity Act which extends to “a sovereign or other head of State”, the same immunities accorded to diplomats. These immunities are absolute in the case of criminal proceedings. In other words there are no exceptions to the immunity. The International Court of Justice’s decision in the Arrest Warrant Case (Congo v. Belgium) 2002 confirms that this type of immunity continues to apply even when it is alleged that the head of State has committed international crimes. So an allegation that the Pope may be responsible for crimes against humanity will not suffice to defeat his immunity. It should be noted that the immunity of a head of State from criminal prosecution in foreign States is there for very good reasons. In the first place, those State agents charged with the conduct of international relations are given immunity in order to allow international relations and international cooperation to continue to take place. Secondly, the immunity of foreign heads of States assures that just as States may not engage in regime change by armed force they may not achieve this end by criminal prosecutions either. It respects the fundamental autonomy of each State to determine who it is governed by.

Even assuming that the Vatican were not a State under international law that does not mean that the Pope will not be granted immunity from criminal process in the UK. First of all, the UK courts in determining the question of immunity will not be asked to determine whether the Vatican is a State under international law. Under Section 21 of the State Immunity Act, the question whether the Vatican is a State is to be resolved, conclusively, by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. So as long as the Foreign Office is of the view that the Vatican is a State, the Courts are bound to accept that. The State Immunity Act aside, deference to the executive on matters of Statehood is in line with longstanding case law of the English Courts. It is almost certain that the Foreign Office will certify that the Vatican is a State, as the US executive did in a case against the Vatican in the US. Britain maintains diplomatic relations with the Holy See and has an Ambassador with the Holy See. It may be argued that this is not quite the same as recognising the Vatican as a State – and it isn’t. The embassy is to the Holy See and not to the Vatican. Nonetheless, as far as I know Britain has not objected in the past to the Vatican’s claims to be a State nor has it, as far as I know, opposed the Vatican’s accession to treaties that are only open to States.

A second reason that the Pope will be entitled to immunity from criminal process in the UK even if the Vatican were not a State is because there is general acceptance of the international legal personality and in particular of the “sovereign” status of the Holy See. The relationship between the Vatican and the Holy See are complex. Crawford’s book referred to above, deals with this question very well. What is clear is that the Holy See as the central authority of the Catholic Church is not just the government of the Vatican. In addition, it has a special status in international law and has international legal personality which precedes the creation of the Vatican in 1929. What is important here is the nature of that international legal personality. Like the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta, the Holy See is deemed to have a sovereign status akin to Statehood. This includes possession of the immunities that States are entitled to. It may be significant that Section 20 of the State Immunity Act provides immunity for “a sovereign or other head of State.” Does sovereign in that context allow for entities like the head of the Holy See, the Pope, even if he were not a head of State? It may be interpreted in this way and should be. It could be argued the word “other” in that provision, militates against this interpretation. However, even if S. 20 does not allow for the immunity of Head of the Holy See, that would not preclude the argument that customary international law does.

The suggestion that the Pope could be indicted by the International Criminal Court will fail for similar reasons. Although the Vatican is not a party to the Statute of the ICC, the ICC will have jurisdiction over acts committed on the territory of States parties. But, even if these acts amounted to crimes against humanity – and that would be very hard to prove – the Pope would still be entitled to immunity as the head of a non-Party State. The indictment of Sudanese President Bashir is not a precedent here unless those mounting this campaign are able to get the Security Council to refer the case to the ICC. I have written on these issues at length on this blog and elsewhere so I won’t go into the details of the argument. However, the immunities of non-parties to the ICC Statute is recognised by Article 98 of the ICC Statute

So the campaign to get the Pope arrested has generated enormous media coverage but the legal analysis deployed in support is very weak indeed. Don’t expect to see the Pope in handcuffs anytime soon.

http://www.ejiltalk.org/can-the-pope-be-arrested-in-connection-with-the-sexual-abuse-scandal/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:33 PM

13. He would no longer be considered a head of state, so that

immunity would probably be gone. But if the new Pope decided to give him sanctuary within the Vatican, I don't see how any foreign government would be able to legally arrest and prosecute him. He'd never be able to leave the Vatican, of course, but I'm sure he would be able to manage with that limitation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:17 PM

29. But then why resign

If resignation exposes him to prosecution? Theoretically he could ride it out until he dies. Is there internal Vatican pressure pushing him out for this mattet, to try to preserve the Papal title from irreparable damage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:06 PM

75. Can you say, "UNDER PRESSURE"?! (Remember John Paul I?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #75)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:30 PM

82. But by whom?

There isn't any real means to depose a living Pope. In theory a council can be convened to remove him from office, but the Pope has absolute authority to block the formation of such a council. Pretty much, unless he wants to, nothing can make the Pope leave the position if he doesn't want to. So...the question remains: who is pressuring him, and who has enough leverage to push a Pope out that doesn't want to go - because to leave means to face prosecution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #82)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:58 PM

94. There was a lot of speculation

that John Paul I was done away with. It had to do with the Vatican bank, and it supposedly named some higher ups as involved in financial corruption. There were some problems with identifying who found the body, and death certificate issues, etc.

My assumption is that there is probably some evidence waiting in the wings that could bring tremendous disgrace upon the Church involving the sexual abuse scandals and Ratzinger is resigning to help mitigate that disgrace. It's a well known fact he helped cover it up - his was the department that was investigating it!

Also, so much money has been spent on reparations to victims. No organization likes losing tons of money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:58 AM

102. That's my guess. Since, in the tradition of the papacy, the pope is the closest human being to God

on earth, nothing he does is to be seen as wrong. Ratzinger, of course, is nothing BUT wrong, in what he's done, and there's no question of his deep involvement in a cover-up at the very least. I believe he's probably also molested boys, and that is probably one of the things that is about to come out. So it destroys the church's "power" in the pope. It helps the catholic church raise a lot of its obscene wealth to have the second best thing to God right here on earth.

Of course, the whole power thing in church is wrong and has always been wrong with churches, and hopefully this mess will start to create a world where spiritual growth, morals and righteousness can be taught in a realistic way, as opposed to a superstitious and authority-based, money hungry, power base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:17 PM

30. This all well might play out as high Catholic drama. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:27 PM

11. My first thought, too. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:21 PM

34. This an important detail

If he can't be extradited then the allegation is pointless. It's similar to the House passing budgets that it knows won't receive a Senate vote. The impassable bill can say anything, there's no obligation to remain credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:57 PM

43. it is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:16 PM

78. We could just fly a drone up his ass. It's perfectly legal they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:10 PM

114. I don't know the answer to that but your comment may

explain why he will be living withi the Vatican City once he retires.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:15 AM

125. That's why he's cloistering himself at the Vatican for the rest of his life, I guess.

It makes sense if this story is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:24 PM

8. What a bunch of BS. The ICC complaint is wholly frivolous.

The ICC has no jurisdiction or will to act in this area, the rest is just CT nonsense.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:16 PM

79. Now wait a second

calling it CT nonsense is going a little far. It is KNOWN, for a FACT, that he helped cover up the sexual abuse. He was the one heading the department investigating it!

The idea that he sought immunity, etc. may well be nothing, but he is culpable in allowing priests to continue to molest children. He should be in jail for that, and disgraced like Joe Paterno was for allowing Sandusky to continue molesting children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #79)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:43 PM

86. The title of the OP has immunity in all caps.

No doubt the church has its problems, but the premise of this post is definitely conspiracy theory nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #86)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:04 AM

96. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

I'm sure the unicorns living in your backyard fit right in with your fantasy.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/pope-led-coverup-of-child-abuse-by-priests-7220621.html

READ that and LEARN something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #96)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:27 AM

97. You actually think the pope resigned because he was desperately seeking immunity?

And feared prosecution by the ICC, or whatever nonsense the OP is asserting?

Laugh away, but clearly the OP is CT garbage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #97)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:48 PM

117. You may not agree with the speculation, but to call it CT garbage

seems an attempt to win the argument via ridicule. Most recognize the CT label as pejorative.

IMO things dealing with the elite are never what they seem. The masses dont get to look behind the curtain. It appears to me that some love that arrangement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:26 PM

10. Good

It's about time. Take down the whole Catholic Church with him. Perverts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:16 PM

121. I sincerely hope this is the beginning of the end of the entire church.

It is second only to radical Muslim sects for causing misery and death in the world for centuries. Imagine the thousands, maybe millions of men, women and children in Africa who are suffering and dying because this monster told his sheep that condoms cause AIDS? Ratzinger is a genocidel Nazi and the church has been abetting him and his evil predecessors for thousands of years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:27 PM

12. May Justice Be Served

 

and this Animal put in jail for his crimes against children.

I will dance naked with a bottle of wine when I hear this pos is arrested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:35 PM

15. I will dance with you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:35 PM

14. Here's a crazy idea: Stop fucking kids!

Then watch as your problems disappear.

I started as religious, advanced to ambivalent to religions, and now I'm rabidly anti religion. I'm afraid where I'll be in a few more years if they keep this up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:38 PM

16. Religion and Faith should never be mixed together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:11 PM

53. Neither should religion and sex....

Face it,...her screaming "Oh god!" isn't REALLY a "religion" thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:25 PM

35. As a kid religion was no big deal to me, but I never believed a bit of it, nor did I believe

in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny or any of it ... but, religion was OK, it just slid off of me ... probably because my parents were not that religious, although we went to church and did all the church things kids did. I know my father did it for political reasons. A good politician that wants to get elected to office many times over takes the kids and wife to church for show.

With all of the crap religion gets into anymore, I too have become pretty anti-religion. It's something I want nothing to do with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:07 PM

113. Right on. I'd add to that excellent suggestion for the Church

to stop covring up the crimis once the fuckrs are caught

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:39 PM

17. Alleged by whom? 'Addicting Info' doesn't give any source

How did Shannon Barber find out about this 'note' from an unnamed government? Is Shannon Barber in Rome? Is it likely that an American website would get special knowledge of what a European government is doing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:20 PM

33. That's not important. Now, it's ONLY about shaming the Church one way or the other.

Unfounded allegations, as long as they name the Church or the Pope, are going to be slurped up without regard to whether they're accurate or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:25 PM

59. You're right. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not.

No way to say without a real source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:20 PM

80. Well

the Church *should* be ashamed of covering up abuse, and enabling priests to continue molesting children when they knew they were doing it. This is exponentially worse than Penn State, and we see how that went.

So yeah, he and others in the Church helped cover it up, and they should be very ashamed of themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #80)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:45 PM

87. I understand where you're coming from, I do. It gets to the point though where

we're talking about guilt by association and I'm not about to say all Catholics are tainted by the actions of priests. I'm admittedly not up to snuff about what Ratzinger might or might not have been part of.

A childhood friend of mine that I grew up with in Norwalk was on his way to the priesthood. He got to the gates (figuratively) and realized it wasn't for him, but not because of the Church's past, but because of where he thought it was headed in the future. I always thought that was strange, but who am I to argue with a guy I played hopscotch with as a kid that now has a Masters Degree in Theology.

I just don't like the whole guilt by association thing. It's like saying I've got the blood of Newtown, CT children on my hands because I own a few guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #87)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:53 PM

93. I'm not blaming Church members

though, were I a member, I would think twice about donating, but that's just me. I do, however, hope that the Church roots out the pedophile priests and addresses it for the future because it seems almost institutional to some degree. That's not to accuse all priests, or even some priests, but when it's to the point where THAT MANY of them have either been guilty of it, accused of it, or covering it up, that seems like the symptoms of a deeper problem than just a few bad apples, you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:03 PM

74. Alleged by the Internatinal Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State

http://itccs.org/

As far as I can tell, the entire story is bogus from the word go. If you find reason to believe otherwise, please advise. TYIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #74)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:01 AM

95. Yeah, I read that

it looks like a phony story to get hits. All of the blogs about it seem to link back there. They are talking about seizing property from the Vatican, etc., like that has a chance in hell of happening, if you'll pardon the pun.

Looks like a whole lot of wishful thinking and people trying to stir up a movement to get money from the Church.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #74)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:36 AM

98. Yes, I followed the trail

and it led to itccs... IOW.. led to nowhere.

I was really hoping it was the real thing but it's hype.

People have to stop slopping things up just for the thrill of posting a hope. Most of the allegations of abuse are worth being kept in the best light. They have to be realistic and supported by facts and data... not stupid allegations that have no evidence. Stuff like this makes the real truth of child abuse by the Catholic Church look weak and frivolous.

I hope it turns out to be the fact, but until then it's just gas.

Keep things real... and factual.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:42 PM

18. need a more credible mainstream source for this story to have legs

not I dont believe it ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:49 PM

20. I agree but this event's (Pope's resignation) facts is still in its infancy.

What was the triggering mechanism for the Pope to resign?

Being anointed the Pope is consider a Divine lifetime appointment.

This is not same as the CEO of CocaCola or IBM stepping down...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:45 PM

19. I knew it!

Ratzinger has been a very smelly fish from the beginning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:58 PM

73. Frankly...

... it's something about his looks. His eyes in particular, sort of shifty-eyed. He just doesn't have that kind curmudgeonly look in his face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:53 PM

21. This is tragic for people in a faith community.

Human nature is what it is... good, indifferent, well meaning, or bad. So, I'm getting some popcorn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:58 PM

22. Occam's razor: The pope is old. He's quitting because he can't stay awake.

Who is this Shannon Barber? A fiction writer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:04 PM

24. People need their layers of hidden truths or something, I suppose. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:05 PM

25. Do you honestly believe the Pope resigned because

he woke up one day and said ' I'm too old so....I QUIT!...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:10 PM

26. As much as I want to see church officials in jail

I see no credible sources to the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:36 PM

84. No, he's been thinking about it for at least

two years that are publicly known. Somewhere here on DU is an OP with excerpts of an interview Benny gave to a European publication two years ago. His response to a question about the possibility of resigning was well thought out, strongly indicating he'd considered the issue. The Pope's brother has given interviews indicating he and the Pope had discussed his resigning the papacy for more than a year.

IMHO, a perfect storm has occurred, the financial scandals, the Pope's obvious age, combined with his declining health, as well as the sex abuse scandal(s) have all taken a toll on Benny. But I also believe he was gently nudged into resigning; the College of Cardinals want to bring all these scandals to a close and focus on other things, e.g., the evangelization of Roman Catholicism in Asia, Africa and Latin America. He's leaving the papacy on Feb 28, to live in Castle Gondolfo (summer residence of the Popes), while remodeling of a convent within Vatican City is completed. When that construction is completed, Benny will leave the Castle and move into the room(s) at the convent. Interestingly, the convent is cloistered, meaning Benny's public life will be be finished and he won't be speaking, at least in public.

I've lived in a cloistered residence, the only time we were permitted to speak was meal time. Other cloistered facilities are even stricter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Reply #84)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 06:02 PM

118. Perfect storm I think is accurate.

He attempted to soften any blows form what was going on. I think he well knew. He also surprised many when he was selected Pope as it was thought he was too conservative and possibly too close to the troubles the Church had. He will spend his days in silence, untouchable and surrounded by women. Heh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glinda (Reply #118)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 06:19 PM

119. I just re-read...

the article about Benedict revealing he was a liberal until some sort of confrontation in 1968, involving students at Munich University. I've previously heard he was a liberal and was one of the prime movers/authors of what is referred to as Vatican II. Benedict also was an admirer of the late Cardinal Newman, the article mentioned what teaching Benedict admired but, it's not registering....I'm gonna go see if I can locate it. lol Hopefully I will return the info!

---------

Found the reference:

I ID'd the wrong German place, as you'll read:

Whatever happens, for a pope who was elected on the traditionalist ticket, it was a curious thing to retire. Popes just don’t retire. And then he did. Ever since his moment of truth in 1968, when the rioting students of Tübingen converted the liberal-minded Joseph Ratzinger into the Enemy of the Enlightenment and Defender of Catholic Reaction, this has been a man—surely—who wanted to revert to the way things were in the good old days, back in ... er ... when exactly?


and;

John Henry Newman, the 19th-century convert from Anglicanism, in 1845 wrote a world-changing book—literally—called The Development of Christian Doctrine. In it, he posited that nothing stays the same; everything is in a state of flux and development. He popularized the Hegelian view of the world for English speakers, and thereby prepared the world for Darwin and modern political democracy. But it took a while for the church—in the Second Vatican Council—to catch up. Ratzinger, behind the old-fashioned vestments, and the occasional sharp message to American or German liberal theologians, has always in fact been a Newman Catholic, aware that the church, for all its historic roots in the world of late classical antiquity, is ever changing, ever new.


The article is posted on The Daily Beast but, it's published in Newsweek.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/18/enough-with-the-old-european-popes.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Reply #119)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:36 PM

122. Wish I could find the Catholic online magazine newsletter where

it detailed his rise to Popedom. It was written right after he became Pope and mostly talking about the "concerns" that were present when they chose him. Hands down the article stated that there were almost "gasps" when he was elected. Lots of concern at that time about his long standing conservatism and even mention about that he was the "conservative push" behind Pope John Paul II with referrals to PJPII illness and weaknesses at the end. The person was quite knowledgable. Probably Jesuit.

I will never ever ever forget when PJPII body was in casket for the people outside to see. The people kept yelling for him to be canonized a Saint, then Bennie turned around as he was leaving and glared almost back at the public. I will never forget the look he had in his eyes. I thought him to be with envy. That or anger. It was like his face transformed. I saw evil. Did not expect myself to have exactly that reaction but that is what I saw. I watched the ceremony because PJPII was from the same village as my grandmother. Kinda like attending a funeral for her neighbor....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:08 PM

76. Popes die in office. "Old" doesn't cut it. And "Too Old For Lent"? VERY odd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:41 AM

99. Yes, because just after he became Pope

he stated that the Pope should not stay in that position if he is unable to fulfill his duties. That was one of the first things he made clear. He actually said, as I remember it, not to expect his papacy to last until he died.

Look, I'm all for "getting" the Catholic Church on all their crimes against humanity, but we have to be real, not just hype the hope... and fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:19 PM

111. Occam's Razor is not foolproof

 

Occam's Razor would have told us the wells in London were safe during the plague...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:02 PM

23. B-b-but he's old and ill! He bumped his head and walks a little slow!

LEAVE THE POPE ALONE!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:13 PM

27. Hmmmmmm!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:16 PM

28. For a long time I wonder if the pope is guilty of liking little children alittle to much.

 

I never liked this pope from the beginning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:31 PM

37. I wonder, have there been any allegations about that ... and he seems to purposely always be after

LGBT. It just makes one wonder, at least it does me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:34 PM

83. I'll be honest

I've wondered the same thing. It takes a special level of depravity and callousness to cover up for child molesters and enable them to continue abusing kids.

Does that make him a pedophile? No, but it wouldn't completely shock me, either. His brother has had some allegations surrounding him, too. He ran a boys and mens choir and there were a bunch of rumors about sexual and physical abuse there. His name is Georg Ratzinger.

I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop. I think something pretty big in the way of evidence is coming down the pike, and he resigned to try to minimize the disgrace to the Church.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:20 AM

106. Something is up. A pope just doesn't resign like that. Maybe someone has something

 

on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:45 PM

88. Who else would cover for a pedophile...

...but a pedophile himself?

Most of us normal people find pedophilia vomit-inducing, evil and selfish. We have visceral and emotional reactions to these crimes against children. Can you imagine covering up scores and scores of incidents of child rape and allowing the pedophiles to continue harming children by giving them access to additional, unsuspecting children?

Who does that? The Pope did it. I think only a pedophile would do this.

Many signs point to the notion that the upper echelons of this institution are soaked with pedophiles covering for one another.

You really have to wonder. They don't have the same reaction to child rape that we do. Think about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #88)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:49 PM

90. And some of them

blamed the children! How in the hell can you blame a child for their own rape, and chastise them for talking about it?

What the hell kind of sick mindset is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #88)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:18 AM

105. It makes you sick to think about people like this have ruined organized church.

 

I am still a catholic but I don't go to church any longer. I still feel I am spiritual and I don't feel you need to go to any organized church any longer. Churchs are nothing more then money making machines to supress people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #88)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:34 PM

112. Everybody at Penn State?

Joe Paterno? The university president? No one is suggesting they were pedophiles. They covered up for Sandusky because he meant too much to their precious football team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:17 PM

31. Even if there is

a supposed note from an unnamed government about plans to issue a warrant, why would the Pope go to the Italian government? he is not an Italian citizen. Italy has no authority in the Vatican as under the Lateran Pacts of 1929, Vatican City is recognized as a separate state.
If the Pope was seeking legal protection, he would speak to His Eminence Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello and His Eminence Monseigneur Giuseppe Sciacca, the President and Secretary General, respectively, of the Vatican City State...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:37 PM

38. They are remodeling a building in the Vatican and he will live there

when he retires according to a news report I watched So maybe the Vatican is going to be giving him sanctuary there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:47 PM

39. I would think they would do that no matter what ... it would really be weird to have the pope

move in next door! Hi new neighbor, what did you do, Oh, I used to be pope, just decided to get out of that line of business ... lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:55 PM

41. I'm just wondering, what the hell does a retired Pope do?

Putter around in the garden, grow a few tomatoes or maybe take up golf ? If he golfed would he get to use the pope mobile to get around on the golf course ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #41)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:04 PM

46. Good question ... he sure can't pal around with the other popes, like call them up for a game of

golf, or go fishing ... maybe join a bowling team? lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:37 PM

65. Since it has been so long since a Pope retired

everything is new ground.
He could stay in the Vatican, or go live in another Papal residence. I would think that would be sovereign territory,like An embassy.
It would also be easy for the Vatican to give him credentials as An ambassador at large, or some such, providing diplomatic immunity to go wherever he wished.

All in all, I think this article is wishful thinking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:19 PM

32. If this were La Repubblica or a similarly prominent Italian

paper, I might believe it.

But this kind of story getting broken on a random blog in the US?

Hmmmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:49 PM

40. How reliable is this source?

If this is true will the MSM even touch it? I would not be surprised if this were true, but I would like to know how reliable the source is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #40)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:56 PM

42. I was tempted to post something about this earlier today.

However, every link I found referred back to one site: http://itccs.org/ and refers to "Italian media sources."

Personally, I never trust something like this that always leads back to the same source. YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #42)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:00 PM

45. I just googled it and saw some Italian links to it.

The MSM won't touch it until the Italian media does all the dirty work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:08 PM

50. Help me out.

I just googled 'italy immunity pope' and got the same results back as before. Many articles, same verbiage, leading back to the same source. As far as I can tell, the international tribunal has no international standing. Subpoenas have been issued and ignored and nobody pays any real attention. My daughter follows the site I linked above religiously, hoping for something to come of it. I remain skeptical.

If you found links to Italian sources, I'd be very interested. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #50)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:15 PM

55. I just doubled checked and it appears I was mistaken.

Several blogs are reporting it but from the same source. The question is how reliable the source is. I think the US media will let the European media do the work on this one. In Europe the media will not face much of a backlash from it, but here they will. Give it 24 hours and if the story builds you know you have something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #55)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:47 PM

69. No worries.

I really tried earlier to find something to corroborate this story.

If you read the original article with an eye for evidence, you may find, like I did, that it's just an interesting narrative (read bullshit).

If you read it on the internet, it's likely that somebody made it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #69)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:50 PM

70. It seems like wishful thinking.

I am not a fan of the man, but I think that the media need to get the story right. Who knows what is going to come out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:57 PM

44. Finally the other shoe drops..

 

I Got a feeling this is gonna be the story for a long time..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Reply #44)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:14 PM

54. Nothing is going to happen. He does not need...

pardon from the Italian Gov. and The Vatican is a county all to itself. The Italian Gov has no say and he can stay there all his life and nothing will happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #54)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:27 PM

60. Oh I know nothing will happen

 

But you can't unring the bell and now the cat is out of the bag and the pope will be shamed in much the same way Paterno was shamed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bennyboy (Reply #60)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:35 PM

64. But that is why they are making a residence in the Vatican

He can stay there for the rest of his life, write books that will be published due to the large publishing corps the Church owns, and live a nice life. His health is rough so he really will want to be a homebody, so he won't be missing anything. Why leave where you will be treated like a rock star?

Miss family? The Church will fly them in to visit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #64)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:41 PM

67. PR nightmare for the Vatican.

Will the Cardinals continue to address him as “Your Holiness” and will he retain his “Benedict XVI” title?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #67)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:45 PM

68. I do believe so.

I need to double check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Reply #67)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:47 AM

100. The answer is no.

The title goes with the name.

He will be called Cardinal Ratzinger again. No more. That was from a Bishop I asked about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:04 PM

47. Vatican city is a country

Complete nonsensical article. Italy cannot go and arrest him even if they wanted to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drahthaardogs (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:10 PM

51. +1

He can stay in the Vatican for the rest of his life. Think about, as a retired pope, he never have to leave the country of Vatican City. And due to the multi national belief that the Church may give asylum to people and no one may breach this religious freedom, they will not surrender him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:07 PM

49. Coming from this group, I don't believe it. This is the news of the millennium if true.

I'll wait for the NYTimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:10 PM

52. I would love to see this man trade papal vestments

with prison orange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #52)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:28 PM

61. Don't get your hopes up. This story leaves out some facts.

He is planning to stay at the Vatican.

The Vatican is a country all to itself, and it has no extradition treaties. This is due to an age old belief of giving people asylum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:15 PM

56. It's not illegal when the Pope does it? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:15 PM

57. I would be very happy if this proves true. That said, I do not believe it at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:24 PM

58. I knew something was up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:40 PM

66. Yeah, uh...this doesn't really make sense to me

First, what's the source? I don't know this site, and I'm not seeing anything in the story saying where the info comes from.

Second, while I think Ratzinger's shielded priests who've abused children, I don't see HIM being a likely target. The bishops & priests are a lot more likely.

Third, the pope is a head of state, and as such, immune to prosecution. If it was true, he'd be personally much safer remaining pope.

Along with that, everything I've read suggests that when he leaves, he'll be first heading to Castel Gandolfo in Italy - while that might explain a request to the Italian President for immunity, why would he leave the Vatican? I'm sure there are apartments he could stay in temporarily if there were a chance of him being arrested outside the country.

Fourth, there is no reason, imo, to believe that his resignation is for any reason other than age & ill health. Despite what some seem to believe, Ratzinger has for years said that he believed that a pope had both a right and in fact a duty to resign if he could no longer continue to fulfill his mission. From what I've read, it seems that his health has really taken a downturn recently & I think he believes he's come to that point.

As much as I dislike him & wouldn't shed a tear if he were indicted & imprisoned, I think this is all a bunch of BS and everyone's in a hurry to believe it because he is so disliked & they desperately WANT there to be more to it than a sick old man retiring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 10:54 PM

71. Roger Mahoney got away with so much

for so many years - the PR machine was always running. If he was protected this long, Ratzinger has no worries - he will be, too. But I believe that Mahoney's ouster has much, much to do with this "retirement." And I think Ratzinger was advised if he would just go away quietly, the almighty Roman Catholic Church would take care of everything, and all the hullabaloo would die down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iwillnevergiveup (Reply #71)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 02:43 PM

115. Just because Mahoney is gone doesn't mean we've heard the last of him.

Expect that the crimes he and his organization have been involved in to get way worse. It's been all over the news here in LA. I doubt we've barely scratched the surface of what he's involved in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:13 PM

77. All the people here who suspected this, raise your hands!

?w=300&h=213

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:25 PM

81. The term "Allegedly" should be highlighted in the title to the same degree

as the other highlights. It is just as relevant to the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:39 PM

85. Would all of the OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson deniers please stand up.

Sorry, but this shit happened, and there's alot of proof from alot of reliable sources.

The catholic priests have been abusing children as far back as the beginnings of the church.

Its not because the religion helps create pedophiles. It's because the priesthood is a place where offenders think their impulses will be checked. But these kinds of impulses really never stop, and so the priesthood is a great place to hide, and there are always unsuspecting orphans and alter boys right at hand, sworn to secrecy by terror for their immortal souls.

I know of 2 local priests who were having affairs with grown women right in their congregations. They eventually got caught. The real question is, why were they ever priests?

It's the power. Rape is about power, with a sexual impulse. But it's always about power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #85)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:46 PM

89. Yes, children were raped.

But the pope did not request immunity. I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #89)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:49 PM

91. That I wouldn't know about.

But it wouldn't surprise me, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lindysalsagal (Reply #85)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 11:53 PM

92. I haven't seen anyone denying the child abuse and sexual crimes

at least not in this thread.

But the primary point of the OP is that Ratzinger has requested immunity. That is only an allegation at this point and is unlikely to be true for any number of reasons stated above.

Edit to add: post #66 presents the best analysis of this situation, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:58 AM

101. Louis CK learns about the Catholic Church

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:00 AM

103. While I dislike the RCC hierarchy as much as anyone, this story sounds like a bunch of crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 01:04 AM

104. Holy Mackerel!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:21 AM

107. Guess he's not infallible after all.

The sheer arrogance of that claim by any human being is just mind boggling. He and those he protected deserve to be served justice hard and cold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #107)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 03:08 PM

116. The "infallibility" of the pope, as a doctrine, is often misunderstood.

It does not mean "can do/say no wrong", or that he cannot sin, although that's what most non-Catholics

often think, and it's an easy mistake to make.

It means that he can not mislead or speak in error when he is speaking on faith and morals

as the head of the church. It does not mean he can "do no wrong" or be "mistaken",

generally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #116)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:33 AM

128. And by whose authority is he not misleading or speaking in error?

I'm sorry, but I view churches, regardless of denomination, as the political constructs made by man in the interests of wielding power and amassing wealth. Popes throughout history have wielded doctrine for political purposes and are still doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #128)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 09:38 AM

133. According to church doctrine, he is guided by

the Holy Spirit.

You don't have to be sorry, by the way, I'm just giving you information

on the doctrine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:27 AM

108. kick'd and rec'd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 07:29 AM

109. Why am I not surprised

Bet you don't see a discussion of this anywhere on cable or networks!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 12:15 PM

110. I'm confused. The Vatican is a sovereign state

with its own guard, national anthem and football team so wouldn't this be like the head of, for example, Luxembourg asking the head of some other country to grant them immunity (when the legal system of the 2nd country doesn't extend into theirs)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KurtNYC (Reply #110)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:41 PM

129. He's ok within their precincts

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #129)


Response to Segami (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 06:26 PM

120. The only news articles I can find corroborating this all link back to this article

And those articles are all obscure blogs, not major news sources.

How confident are you that this isn't just made up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:40 PM

123. Jesus wept.

It's time the criminal enterprise that is the Cathlic Church is made to account for its actions over the centuries.

So. Many. Victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:48 PM

124. Wait...hate to pop reality

But the Pope has immunity as a head of state. Ok, he might have to stay in the Vatican, a sovereign state...but this does not add up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #124)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:24 AM

126. I agree something does not seem right here.

As a head of state he has more protections. Now I am not sure if the summer residence he is going to first is in Italy or the vatican, but if it is Italy he is putting himself in more danger of being arrested according to this website. Something does not add up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:37 AM

127. Bring him to trial.

First, for the child abuses of the church.

Second, for his time as a Nazi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Segami (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 04:54 PM

131. Not a whole lot different , assuming it to be true , from :

Obama's justice department grants final immunity to Bush's CIA torturers.

By closing two cases of detainees tortured to death, Obama has put the US beyond any accountability under the rule of law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread