An interesting question. As Pope, Joseph Ratzinger is a head of state, so has sovereign immunity. By the rules of his state, he has that position for life, so (unless he abdicates), you can’t wait for his term of office to end.
I don’t know enough about German and Bavarian law to know if you can sue the Archbishop of Munich and Freising for acts that he has performed in his official capacity, or if any possibility of suing him is effectively extinguished if he become head of state of the Holy See.
Thisi doesn’t make sense: why defend the Pope from a charge they aren’t in jurisdiction to bring?
I still think the Church was just stupid, and thought they could handle this crap by themselves, and then it snowballed into not wanting to let people know how poorly they had done.
The Vatican and its defenders have lashed out at the New York Times, who broke the stories on the most recent scandals, accusing them of orchestrating a plot to bring down the Pope.
That is their main concern, not justice, not the clear difference between right and wrong, but lashing out at those who dare question them.
Christopher Hitchens again, from his Salon editorial:
Presumably they are suing in relation to events that took place in Kentucky, and they are including the Pope as the supervisor of clergy employed by the Catholic Church. The linked article says,
If the events took place in Kentucky (the article doesn’t make that clear), the court has jurisdiction over the clergy involved, and probably the relevant diocese, but it may be hard to link the Holy See into the action, partly because it may be hard to prove an employer-employee relationship between the Holy See and the pedophile clergy.
You have a point in that since the Pope is not a U.S. citizen (and can even be thought of as a head of state), the parties in Kentucky may not have grounds to bring the suit and force the Pope’s deposition. However, there is quasi-legal loophole regarding foreign nationals that the U.S. has begun using in the past few years. It is possible that we could use this procedure in order to find out just exactly what the Pope knew and when he knew it. What’s the loophole?
The fact that Joseph Ratzinger is not a U.S. citizen is irrelevant. Suppose the next pope were a U.S. citizen: it would have no effect on the suit, unless that pope were involved in some other way, e.g., as being a former bishop of a diocese where sexual abuse was alleged. What would possible be relevant are the pope as head of state of the Holy See, and the fact that the Holy See does not directly employ the clergy in dioceses and archdioceses outside the Vatican City.
Yep, it sure looks like MOST of the effort went into keeping their dirty little secrets, a secret. For the “good of the church” and to hell with any victims or potential future victims.
This is one of those new stories that the more one finds out about it, the more sickened one gets. It’s hard and horrible enough to read about the abuses and atrocities that occurred (and I have no doubt are still occurring, people being people), but to read the half-ass acknowledgment of wrong done and the plea to more closely embrace the very institution that caused such pain is very difficult indeed. A statement is NOT going to cut it. Not this time–something more needs to be done. Perhaps it is time for the Church to enter the 20th century, since we are now comfortably in the 21st.
Time was one could say that this was “only” a few priests and could (if one were so inclined) weigh all the positives that the Catholic religion provides (I am not Catholic, but surely it has done some good in the world) and come out on the positive side. No more. No matter which way you look at it, the Church has blood on its hands: not allowing women any type of equal say or power within the church; forcing women to have larger families than they desire (hell, include the fathers in that as well); the whole “condoms cause AIDS” insanity; the pedophile priest scandals in the States which have become a regular feature since I was in college, and now globally. If I were Catholic, I would no longer be so. I’m not saying that all must do as I would, but surely this must give “good” Catholics pause.
I acknowledge the problems weren’t much better under the last pope – it’s just wishful thinking, I suppose. Or maybe, like Jayjay, it’s a case of nostalgia.
I was lucky enough to live here in the diocese of Pittsburgh, under Bishop Donald Wuerhl. He’s notorious for having a hardcore zero tolerance for this kind of shit. Not that I, or anyone I know was molested. (well, as far as I’m aware of)
Or maybe, like Jayjay, it’s a case of nostalgia.