Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens tried this with Pope Benedict a while back. They were going to personally arrest him and drag him off to jail. What they didn’t realize was that the Pope is a head of state (Vatican City) and therefore has diplomatic immunity. Whether or not the (current) Pope deserves to be imprisoned because of all the sex abuses in the RCC, I don’t care. I don’t know if arresting the current Pope would solve anything, really.
Is Joseph Ratzinger worse than Hitler? is not a question I care to answer.
All you stated was that the Pope had diplomatic immunity (and he does), and that you didn’t care to discuss whether he was worse than Hitler or deserves to be imprisoned.
Pose a topic for discussion, Theophane, don’t just throw stuff out there like it’s “obvious.” It may well be, but you are obligated to frame things properly or I’ll probably shut this down unless you can formulate a premise for discussion.
I wanted to discuss the diplomatic immunity of the Pope, and the fact that RD and CH tried to arrest him. If this is too controversial for the Straight Dope, I apologize. If the other posters suspect me of pushing a hidden agenda or questioning my presence here, then I should try to be as transparent as I can.
First of all, the newscast you linked to is over a year old. Secondly, it doesn’t claim what you says it claims. There was no suggestion in there that Dawkins and Hitchens were going to “personally arrest him and drag him off to jail,” and there was nothing in there about a citizen’s arrest. Rather, he said they were working with lawyers and officials within the British government to see if there were any ways that the Vatican’s claims of sovereign immunity could be voided in order to try the pope in an international criminal court.
My guess is that Hitchens didn’t actually expect the Pope to get arrested, but was using the time-honored tactic of saying controversial things on TV in order to spread awareness of the Catholic Church’s manipulation of various court systems.
The notion that this subject is too controversial for the Dope is a bit laughable.
The Admin can invent any old reason for banning me, but I’d appreciate if it’s because I’m honestly not wanted here. People on SD want to be told they are right, all the time, and when they don’t get that ego gratification they get mad. I don’t kiss any asses here, and because of that I’m not welcome.
It appears to me as though Theophane wants to be told he is right, all the time, and when he doesn’t get that ego gratification he gets mad. We don’t kiss any asses here, and because of that he is making himself unwelcome.
Do you feel that he does not have diplomatic immunity?
Do you feel that he doesn’t deserve it?
Certain levels of crime can drag a head of state before the International Court in The Hague. Do you feel that the Pope should be made to answer for the child molestation crimes committed by priests?
Dude, all you do is spit out opinions, and then fail to back them up with any reasoning, just some cryptic nonsense and repetition of the original nonsense. Now I know I started on here with a rotten attitude, which I still have, since I’ve had it all my life, but I do occasionally attempt to make a reasonable attempt to defend my unpopular opinions and respond to my critics with comprehendable answers, even if others don’t like what I’m saying. So try engaging in some real conversation instead of just spitting out nonsense. Try asking questions, and answering the ones people ask you. Try reconsidering what you’ve said, and clarifying it if you think it’s been taken the wrong way. And stop doing what you’ve been doing.
Some people feel that the Catholic hierarchy was involved in the cover-up of such crimes, and that this, while obviously not as bad a crime in absolute terms, is much easier to prove in court.
I’d like to see this issue investigated in more detail, but (for very obvious reasons) few prosecutors are interested in pursuing it.
It’s a little like Vincent Bugliosi’s notion that George W. Bush could be indicted for murder. Even if the idea had legal validity, it simply isn’t going to happen.
The Vatican sex-crimes are bigger than Ratzinger or any of his predessecors. It would be hacking at a branch of the evil while the root of the evil remains hidden.
Can they set bail at “one priceless piece of Renaissance artwork” or does it have to be cash? If nothing else, the UK might get some nice stuff for the British museum.
More specifically, Ratzinger’s previous gig in the Church put him in charge of sex-abuse investigations in the clergy, and he (debatably) encouraged Church officals to keep investigations of abuse internal to the Church. So its not just that the Catholic hierarchy covered up sex crimes and the Pope is head of that hierarchy so lets arrest the Pope, its that there’s some reason believe Ratzinger specifically was complicit in these crimes.
But I agree it won’t go anywhere, regardless of the merits. And I’m sure Hitchens and Dawkins were aware of that.