Story here about The Vatican whisking away a high ranking priest from Washington:
Son of a bitch.
OK, possession of child pornography is a horrible thing (in that it supports the creation of child pornography and thereby sexual abuse of children) and a serious crime. However, I thought that the only kinds of crimes that would nullify diplomatic immunity are things like espionage, i.e. where the crime itself is an abuse of diplomatic status. And in any case, the only usual penalty for diplomats is expulsion, not prosecution under local laws.
So you’re angry because this priest was taken back to the Vatican to face charges there. Is your reaction because it’s the Catholic church? Would your attitude be different if it had been the charges d’affaires of Liechtenstein?
Liechtenstein doesn’t have a history of pedophilia among its diplomatic corps.
Does Vatican City State have a history of pedophilia among its diplomatic corps?
Dude, think about it. An ambassador from another country commits a crime in the U.S. He violates US law. And then the country calls him back and wants to have a trial there? In addition, this country has a relatively recent problem with covering up exactly that type of crime.
What other reason is there to do this other than to try and cover it up, or at least give him a much reduced sentence compared to what he’d get in the U.S.?
And I don’t see why you think child pornography is a lesser crime that shouldn’t revoke immunity. Why shouldn’t something that harms children (as you admit) not be a big enough offense to revoke immunity?
The Church can do its own investigation just fine from within the U.S. Hell, how are they supposed to do it otherwise? He didn’t commit the crime in Vatican City! So leave him there and do your investigation for church purposes, but let the secular system do it for secular purposes.
Why wouldn’t people get mad when a country with such a history appears to be trying to cover it up once again?
Why are you being pedantic? This sounds like a Bricker defense. The Vatican City State is the government that is run by the Roman Catholic Church. And the priests and higher up officials outside of the country have a history of covering up pedophilia.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but it is pretty close to a secular country’s diplomatic corps.
Also, let’s not forget that one of the guys covering it up was both the head of the Church and the head of State of the Vatican City State. Sure, there’s new leadership, but this sure seems like going back to the old ways.
Why in the world call the guy back to investigate for yourselves when the crime was not even committed in your country?
I am pretty sure that any humane country, no matter how heinous the crime a citizen has committed, would do it’s damndest to keep him out of an American, Thai, Venezuelan or Syrian prison, and sentence him themselves.
And it is amusing that when a priest is accused his guilt is taken for granted.
Who’s being pedantic? And just maybe you should learn something about diplomatic immunity.
Dude, I did think about it before I wrote, something you might aspire to. Leaving the irrelevancies and illogic of your arguments aside, I most emphatically and carefully did not say that child pornography is a lesser crime. I said it was a different sort of crime than that which normally revokes diplomatic immunity.
My main point is that you and presumably Czarcasm believe that the normal course of diplomatic procedure should be short-circuited only because the case involves the very emotional components of a Catholic priest and child pornography. This is bad diplomacy and bad policy.
Yeah, that Vatican prison is notorious worldwide. :rolleyes:
Shouldn’t it be alarming that there have been so many, and that their problem continues even after they claim to have cleaned it up?
So, what’re ya gonna do about it? He’s got diplomatic immunity. Do we want to throw out centuries of international law, and give every single foreign representative to this country from this point onward no reason whatsoever to feel safe here, because of this one guy?
You can grit your teeth and accept it, or you can be proud that a member of an organization to which you’ve given your absolute fealty is above mere mortal justice. You’ve chosen the latter, and you owe it to yourself to understand why.
Are you confident that he’ll receive a fair trial in the Vatican, neither a railroading nor a whitewashing? Will he receive a trial at all, or just the same safe haven as Bernard Law? How does the Vatican conduct criminal trials, anyway - when have they ever held one?
Tell us why the Vatican should not waive it here. Is there more reason than that “he’s one of ours, and that matters more than the children involved”?
Apparently, the Vatican doesn’t believe in waiving diplomatic immunity when its officials are charged with serious crimes.
Neither does the USA, by the way
Having said that, I understand why people would be skeptical of the Vatican’s ability/willingness to prosecute this sort of case appropriately. But it’s kind of poisoning the well to assume they’ll fuck it up before they’ve actually done anything on the case.
Their own actions in previous cases have done enough to reverse any assumption that they’ll do justice in this one. It isn’t poisoning the well to point that out.
Diplomatic immunity has existed for a long time with the understanding that real and serious crimes would go unpunished. It’s not just about driving like assholes in New York City. Despite knowing that serious crimes will occur with nothing more than expelling out of the country diplomatic immunity still exists. It exists because it protects our diplomats overseas. We don’t get to retroactively decide “This one we really don’t like.”
True enough, and it starkly illustrates how the RCC has been able to get away with so much for so long due to its anachronistic nation-state status. It’s long overdue to relinquish that structural enablement and let it focus on the pastoral and moral-leadership function that is its alleged purpose.
DI can be and sometimes is waived, and I notice no one explaining why it shouldn’t be. It really is a stretch to call this latest in a long line of child-abusing priests a “diplomat”, don’tcha think?
Doesn’t the Vatican have a treaty with Italy to use Italian jails if need be?
I agree with all of this. He should be facing charges here and if the Vatican wants to send their investigators or attorneys to the US then bring it on. It absolutely sounds like a cover up, I don’t mean a conspiracy, but that the Vatican is trying to protect this priest from the charges. With the history the Catholic Church has in dealing with issues related to the sexual abuse/mistreatment of children their behavior here raises red flags.
They’re all full up.
No Joke.
Exactly. Diplomatic Immunity is one of those things that really sucks, but the alternative sucks even worse. So far, the RCC hasn’t done anything in this case that any other state wouldn’t also do. Will they sweep this under the carpet eventually? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.