Studdard: Arrest the Pope?

Tag: usa

By James Studdard

That is exactly what journalist Christopher Hitchens and molecular biologist Richard Dawkins want the authorities to do. One would gasp, of course, "Do you mean question the pope in the Church child-rape scandal?" Holy sacrilege, Batman! Well, many are asking if the pope considers himself above all laws, local as well as international.

How can that be? What does that say about the dogged, seems like forever, pursuit to bring the convicted child molester, Roman Polanski, to justice? Is that not rather analogous?


Story Continues below



As a backdrop for bringing the Catholic hierarchy within reach of the law; it is necessary to expand on the issue of pedophile priests. It began when the (then) attorney general of Massachusetts, Thomas Reilly, revealed in 2002 an ongoing investigation which targeted over a thousand priests suspected of crimes (sexual) against children. Cardinal Francis Law, archbishop of Boston, resigned his post on Dec. 13, 2002, in the wake of the investigation, which suggested, through Church documents, that he (Cardinal Law) had covered up sexual abuse committed by priests in his archdiocese. Just a few hours after Cardinal Law left Boston, state troopers arrived with a subpoena seeking his grand-jury testimony. Cardinal Law went to Rome, where he found asylum, and even voted in the election of Pope Benedict XVI. At present he presides over the Italian church, Maria Maggiore, and serves on several Vatican subcommittees.

How then can the Catholic church (Vatican) shelter a man, who is no more than a common fugitive (sans his vestments). It is puzzling to me and infuriating to the parents of the abused children, that the Pontiff would aid in the escape of and grant asylum to Cardinal Law. But then, one must judge the Pope's intervention within the context of his past. When the Pope was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was a trusted deputy in matters of child-rape damage control. It is now known that Cardinal Ratzinger sent a message to all his bishops to report any molestation cases exclusively to his office. Of course in the real world (outside the confines and protection of the Vatican), one who has knowledge of child abuse, is legally obligated to report it to the police.

Geoffrey Robertson, a human rights counsel in London, suggests that the law is not powerless to intervene and if the Pontiff travels to London this fall, he would not be guaranteed any sort of immunity. There is precedent for this, specifically in the case of General Augusto Pinochet (Chile) who was indicted for human rights violations and arrested in London in March 2000. Pinochet, like the Pope, was relying on immunity, but the European judges snubbed that ploy by Pinochet and applied the principle of universal jurisdiction.

There is a lawsuit pending in Kentucky seeking the testimony of the Pope. In Great Britain, it is all the buzz that if the Pontiff shows his face, he will be served with all manner of writs. The Pope considers himself entitled to the same political amenities enjoyed by all heads of state as he presides over Vatican City. His enclave of security, the Vatican, is actually a non-entity covering about 0.17 square miles of Rome, created, by the way, by Benito Mussolini in 1929 as part of a "look the other way" deal between fascism and the papacy. This same sham statehood claim is giving succor to men like Cardinal Law.

The Vatican is damning itself on two fronts: 1) It invites our challenge to his sovereignty and his request of the European Court of Human Rights to recognize his immunity. The ECHR, must, of course recognize the repugnance of the origins of the Vatican (state) 2) If the Holy See wants to claim statehood immunity, it axiomatically follows that the State Department should intervene as well as the Justice department. It is a precarious position for his Imminence.

But first things first: Why are we not moving to extradite his holiness, Cardinal Law? Why does this Pope not call for a full scale investigation into the matter? Here is an example which might explain the Church's unwritten policies, as well as the Pope's reluctance to probe this filthy scandal. In 2001, Cardinal Castrillon of Columbia wrote from the Vatican to congratulate a French bishop who had risked jail rather than snitch on a vicious rapist priest. The following week, Castrillon was invited to be the guest of honor at a sumptuous dinner/Mass in Washington. After an outrage, the invitation was withdrawn.

Finally, in March of this year, the church reluctantly agreed to turn over all child rapists-priests to the civil authority. This is undeniably an admission that the church finally recognizes and draws a distinction between sniveling euphemistic excuses like repentance for sins of the flesh, and unspeakable crimes against children. And to sum it all up in the Latin language of the Chatholic church, "Qui non prohibet quod prohibere potest, assentire videtur." (A person who does not forbid what he can forbid, is considred to assent.) Let us hope that real world punishment follows.


Studdard is a Fayette County attorney and regular conservative columnist for this paper. He can be reached at studlaw2000@yahoo.com

http://www.fayettedailynews.com/artic..._news=5810