[promoted by BooMan]
If one is a theocrat, one believes that the law is what one’s religious authorities say that it is, and one acts accordingly.
One of the leading monarchichal theocracies in the world, is not in the Arab world. A number of Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, are monarchies governed under Islamic law. The Vatican is different of course. The monarchy is not inherited, but it is self-perpetuating, and it in no way may be construed as a democracy. In the course of the papacy of John Paul II, it exerted increasing levels of administrative and doctrinal control over the vast global church, and it’s branches every nation.
As we all know, the leader of the doctrinal police was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, whose Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the agency that led the Inquisition, made it it’s business to silence dissidents, and command conformity among Catholic academics, politicians, and clergy.
:::More:::
One of the problems with this level of control is that the church, also functioning as a state, sometimes contradicts civil law in the nations in which it operates. Sometimes the conflict is with criminal law.
The Guardian newspaper reported this weekend that the new pope may have obstructed the efforts of law enforcement to investigate the growing sex abuse scandal in the United States — by ordering bishops to keep secret allegations that came to their attention.
“Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night,” according to the Guardian, “he had ‘obstructed justice’ after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church’s investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret. The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.”
“It asserted the church’s right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger… Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a ‘clear obstruction of justice’.”
The letter, the newspaper continues, “orders that ‘preliminary investigations’ into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger’s office” and that all proceedings must be internal and conducted “only by priests.”
“‘Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,’ Ratzinger’s letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.”
“The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop [now Cardinal] Tarcisio Bertone [of Genova, Italy] who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church’s opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.”
“‘In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,’ Bertone said.”
This is an extraordinary claim — that church leaders are exempt from American criminal law. Additionally, it is worth pointing out that the offense is not “paedophilia,” as Bertone euphemistically claims. This is an academic term. The criminal laws in the U.S. call it rape, or sexual assualt.
Bertone was at the time of the letter, the secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (He may be best known in the U.S. for his broadcast on Vatican radio calling on people not to read the best-selling novel The DaVinci Code.)
For foreign clerical leaders to order their U.S. followers to ignore and defy U.S. criminal laws in the face of evidence of specific crimes, may very well constitute criminal offenses in thier own right, beginning with, as lawyers for some of the abuse victims told The Guardian, “obstruction of justice.”
[Crossposted from FrederickClarkson.com]
Some people think they are the law.
or any other country, regardless of wishes to the contrary in Washington.
If any charges are to be brought, it would have to be against US bishops against whom there is sufficient evidence to warrant arrest and prosecution.
The US can break diplomatic relations with the Vatican if it wants to, but it cannot go and arrest the Pope.
Anyone may be indicted in the United States, and extradicted. If a given nation refuses to extradite, then the suspect may be apprehended and brought to the U.S. if he strays into another country. Happens all the time.
It seems unlikely that anything like this would happen in this instance, but the legal basis for doing so is unquestioned.
if they wish to comply with the extradition request, if one is made.
I do not think that one will be made.
The welfare of children is not a US priority, to begin with, and the warlords have some close ties with the Vatican, and with this Pope in particular.
hanni has done an excellent diary that is very informative on this issue.
Code of Silence: Religion and the Media
you are aware that the US is not synonymous with the Bush administration or the GOP?
I am very concerned about the welfare of children, so are you, and so are most Americans.
Obviously, the new Pope has some major glaring blindspots in his devotion to children’s welfare. That is a huge disappointment.
US policy is what it is, and either it is the will of the people, or the people are helpless hostages of evil warlords and their henchmen, and sorely and urgently in need of immediate liberation.
The Democrats have hardly covered themselves with glory with regard to this issue any more than with others. From regulations of work hours for migrant children, to the exceptionally profitable health care industry to public schools to treatment of seized juveniles to disposition of minors whose parents are imprisoned, the list goes on.
Pragmatism is bipartisan.
a tit-for-tat, black and white, either/or, with us or against us, rhetorical device?
I am not helpless. And I am not responsible for the policies of this President. I have been fighting him for nearly 5 years.
The only thing I am objecting to, is the same thing you pointed out yesterday regarding certain Israelis that get no credit for opposing their government’s policies.
and brave, and probably in more danger than they realize.
The number is also very small. They consititue a marginalized minority variously dismissed by their own politicians and their own countrymen as extremists, radicals, wackjobs, a shrill fringe of detainees in waiting.
They deserve a hell of a lot more than credit, but in the matter of changing their goverment, they, including you, since you count yourself among their number, are indeed helpless.
There are simply not enough of you, and those few do not have either money or armies to remove the warlords and war criminals, bring them to justice, oust the pragmatic politicians and remake the economic system from the ground up.
The US does not have a Hugo Chavez, and most of the US political class does not want one.
The underclass is a different story.
Thinking about it, I am not sure that even if it wanted to, that the US could ask to extradite Ratzinger.
Sitting in another country and instructing or advising Americans to break American law – is that a crime under US law? What would the crime be? What is the statute?
He was not in the US, so he committed no crime in the US.
It would seem that any governmental response would have had to be through diplomatic channels, at the time of the letter. To my knowledge, no protest was lodged, no ambassadors were summoned to complain about the actions of a then cabinet member of a foreign state.
That cabinet member is now head of that foreign state, and there has been no indication that Washington’s position has changed.
That appears to me to be the story. As others have pointed out, this is not something that happened yesterday. The story is that in contrast to the rhetoric and threats issued by the US to other foreign states every day, for merely developing weapons to defend themselves against rogue states who invade other countries, in this particular case, not only was no diplomatic protest filed, when the cabinet member became head of state, the President sent his brother to represent him at the inauguration.
This is why I’ve been staying out of this for the most part. Going after the Bishops who are US citizens is one thing, but going after the Pope is entirely different. It bothers us enormously that there is a figure (the Pope) on the other side of the world that has power and influence over US citizens. Unless we use Noriega as a precedent for extradition – which we could (it would make for a world-wide scandal).
I say by all means go after the Bishops (but don’t single them out as being any different from all the others). Clean up on the home front is what’s needed. After all the Bishops, who are US citizens, need to follow the law of the land first. The Pope is the supreme ruler of the Vatican and answers only to himself.
.
“Every bishop” is by definition a very large circulation, nearly 1,000 worldwide, and can hardly be called “very secret”.
I hope this article has substance, and is more than innuedo. The British press love to bash the papacy from historical perspective – the schism of the Church of England since Hendrik VIII. The Brits have their Orange state in Northern Ireland, thanks to our Dutch conqueror William of Orange. The Dutch have an inherited hatred towards the papacy due to the “80 year” war, occupation by the Spanish and the Protestant Reformation.
The MSM create smoke, and where there is smoke there is a fire?
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
does every bishop. It is not very likely that the letter can be classified as “innuendo.”
You may agree or not agree with Ratzinger’s positions on any number of topics, but his positions and his actions are his positions and actions, they are not “innuendo.”
Please don’t take this the wrong way, it is a pet peeve of mine, ususally it is political candidates. In the primaries it was very popular: someone would post a quote by Candidate X and immediately all his admirers would rush in to accuse the poster of “bashing” his candidate, explain that when he said he hated oranges he really meant apples, or one of my favorites, oh he is just saying that for the campaign. When he is elected he will eat lots of oranges, he really loves them.”
If you disagree with the man, don’t support him.
If you do support him, don’t be ashamed of what he says and does. He is the best authority on what he thinks, and the best person to articulate it.
In the case of this letter, Ratzinger did what he thought best. You either agree with him, or you don’t, same with his views on feminism and rock music.
You have every right to champion him, but if you are going to do it, don’t be ashamed of his views, defend them.
Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: ‘It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It’s an obstruction of justice.’
Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church’s jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes. link
.
I emphasized the word “this”, by inserting that word in your statement, is pure deceit. It was not part of the guidelines set forth in the letter of Ratzinger send to Cardinal McCarrick of Washington DC in June, 2004 before the meeting of USCCB in Denver. See my diary where I debunked this issue as fallacy put on the political agenda by right-wing extremists and the MSM.
I consider your diary recommended reading, and I will stick with it, because the matter is grave and important. However, you have to do a better job of framing your statements, or lose your credibility.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
Let’s see here. A foreign-based organization with substantial US presence is found to harbor a large number of its members who have been alleged to have committed serious crimes in a clear pattern. The organization has also shown a separate pattern of awareness and cover-up of those crimes. We have written instruction from a leader of that organization to his underlings to refuse to cooperate with civil authorities in investigating and prosecuting those crimes, continuing the ongoing cover-up.
We have obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, violation of discovery in civil actions, and what I would imagine would be a large number of RICO violations. IANAL, but how hard can it be to figure this out? Maybe one of our Texas prosecutors, following the Gospel According to Rev. Mohler, will go after these unGodly criminals….
I guess if state and local prosecutors wait long enough, the statute of limitations or the old men who are suspects in these crimes, will expire.
With such clear-cut evidence of deliberate criminal activity by the head of state, directed at inducing Americans to ignore and defy the criminal law, there can only be one response. It is the duty of the Bush Administration to rid the world of regimes who have demonstrated they pose a threat to the laws and stability of the US and all civilised countries. The US must invade the Holy See.
Yeah! Only America has the right to behave this lawlessly against other countries.
Do the Cardinals have the same vetting process as the Bush administration?
It’s very disheartening to learn Benedict XVI was more interested in protecting guilty priests than in protecting innocent children.
That is not what American or Irish Catholics want to hear.
I wonder how many will get to hear about it.
I suspect there is a reason this story broke in England and not in the U.S. It will be interesting to see how much and what kind of play the story gets.
Especially since the official media line is to celebrate the new pope.
it hardly seems right to attack a brand new pope. But child abuse is the biggest story in the American Catholic church, and this leaked letter is a big story.
Yeah, we’ll see…
child sexual abuse, and other sex crimes by priests, is the biggest story in the Catholic church in the world.
It came out here, because the legal system is stronger, and some independent media, in this case, The Boston Globe, pursued it.
Salon is covering it.
Even a celibate pope is entitled to a honeymoon. And honeymoons all come to an end.
I have great faith in our civil justice system to take this ball and run with it. I was close to a few of the plaintiffs in the Boston Archdiocese when I lived in Mass., and the brother of a friend of mine was prominent in the victims’ movement before he committed suicide.
I think there are people who won’t be silenced by the current propaganda extravaganza, and it won’t be too many more months before the PR organs are wheezing pretty piteously in an attempt to drown out things like this letter.
Watch the Boston Globe. They may be hungry for another Pulitzer.
I live in Massachusetts, and the pain and grief in the faces of my friends who have told me about thier childhood friends who were abused by priests tells me what I need to know. They look to me as a writer who can help to tell the truth about what happened and who did it and hold them to account. I have not been able to do much.
But now through my blog, and the places I crosspost, I can at least highlight the stories that the American media may find it harder to tell, and make it harder for them not to tell them.
I hope the Globe follows through on this.
accompaniment to everyone’s Monday morning coffee.
Thanks, Booman.
Personally I like my coffee strong and news that cuts through the crap.
I also come out of the school of journalism that is about comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable.
.
Houston Attorney Daniel Shea, going to trick the media in another distributed breaking news story of a “confidential Vatican document”?
See my comment down-thread — A rehash by attorney Daniel Shea.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
This is sad but not surprising. I wish it were surprising.
.
“Render unto Ceasar, what is Ceasar’s,” teaching of JC.
Worse than the rape of a victim, is the cover-up or justice not rendered within an organization. Worse than a cover-up in civilian life, or protecting the “privacy of the perpetrator”, is not standing tall for the victim and protecting the community from further harm. Worse than a civilian who rapes, is a religious person who commits the horrendous crime of rape to someone so vulnerable as a child left under his/her care. Worse than the abusers are the authorities who permit these crimes to continue.
The church should deal with their own differences or position in cases of theology, their own organization and hierarchy. Any civil crime, but certainly rape, should be left to the local government and justice. It should be dealt with forthright and without any obstruction.
I do see parallels with how the US government deals with International law, to do their own investigation of crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the latest report to free the commanders of any wrong doing. The US administration, who does not want to abide by UN sanctions or the International Court of Justice [ICC]. But still these matters are for national and international civil law to be settled.
The church that wants to be established in a diverse society, should adhere to the principle – separation of state and religion. This counts both ways Mr. Bush!
PS Recall the US “protecting” their navy men in Japan after a rape and murder, in South Korea a deadly traffic incident and the pilot “error” in Italy cutting the a cable of a ski lift and multiple deaths. Power corrupts.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
when did Jeb Bush become a Catholic…?
I nearly puked watching the evil bastard kneel in front of the Razinger at his inagural mass.
It makes you wonder what the bruhaha is all about with Da Vinci code… or did Brown like his antagonist in the book unknowingly wrote something that was true?
.
contacts between adults and minors was an initiative in the early nineties by the PvdA, the large Dutch Labor party. PvdA with PM Wim Kok formed the “purple” coalition with D’66 liberals and the VVD right-wing “liberals” on a conservative platform.
Only due to the Dutroux sex scandal breaking the news, did the PvdA on political opportunity, withdraw their initiative to change Dutch law.
Marc DutrouxHow liberal do you want to be in society
and yet care for the innocence of youth, offer them protection in which society and family so often fails!
After a careful re-orientation on the issue, the PvdA senator Edward Brongersma was confronted and his stance reviewed. Brongersma had been a leading advocate on gay rights and sex liberation in the Netherlands for decades. He had established a foundation to protect for scientific and historic purpose – his writings, teachings, documentation and large collection of photos, videos on gay issues and pedophilia.
was for a number of years a member of the Dutch Eerste Kamer [Senate – Ed] and chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee (1969-77).
He was a well-known advocate of pedophilia, and was the author of a number of books and journal articles defending male homosexual pedophilia, the most famous of which is his two-volume book Loving Boys.
In April 1998 he ended his own life by taking drugs which were given to him by his doctor, Philip Sutorius. He had requested euthanasia because, although he was not terminally ill and was not in any pain or suffering, he was lonely, no longer felt useful, was ‘tired of life’ and believed his life was no longer worth living. Sutorius was prosecuted for violating Dutch law, which permits euthanasia only in cases where a person has a terminal illness or has unbearable and unending pain or suffering, which did not appear to apply in Brongersma’s case.
[…]
More reading on issue Edward Brongersma
Apologetic opinion on the Brongersma case in the Netherlands.
Dutch government destroys gay archive, vows mass arrests
In Berlin in 1933, a Nazi mob dealt the archive of homosexual rights pioneer Magnus Hirschfeld a speedy death by bonfire. The Nazis said they wanted to protect children and public morals. Last year, Dutch police seized the core of the Brongersma Foundation archive for the same reasons– but instead of burning the documents, Dutch authorities are poring over them, compiling a list of people around the world to shame, arrest, and prosecute.
Patrician in prison
For decades, Dr. Edward Brongersma had solicited documentation of pederastic relationships so that they might be better understood by posterity. Brongersma had established his foundation some 20 years ago with a library that grew to some 20,000 volumes, and an endowment to fund research.
Victimless crimes
It remains to be seen how successful will be any prosecutions stemming from the seizure. In most cases, the relationships described are many years old, so that if anyone had felt victimized, they’d have had plenty of time to complain already. But depending on local laws, non-cooperation of long-ago non-victims may pose no obstacle to sex police.
Lining up at the guillotine
A letter to the editor in Trouw, a Dutch daily, noted that when sodomites were burned at the stake in the middle ages, their court docket was burned with them– depriving future generations of an understanding of the deed. The Brongersma raids raise the question whether sexuality that is judged criminal can be documented for posterity. But the letter-writer was among the few voices raised against the archive’s destruction, which has been met by a general silence among Dutch historians and preservationists.
With the Dutroux scandal still reverberating, “there’s a sense there that if you stick your neck out on this issue you’ll get your head cut off,” says one activist.
As the Dutch brace for what could be a season of serious witch-hunting, vindication in the fullness of history may be the best they can hope for.
[…] [Above are just bits taken from the article – Ed]
By Steve Baldwin – Reprinted from The Washington Times letters section, May 4, 2002
Even as the nation’s largest religious denomination is rocked by the scandal of pedophile priests, Judith Levine, in her book “Harmful to Minors,” is making excuses for pedophilia. This is hardly a coincidence. Academic Judith Reisman, author of Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, says pro-pedophile “sexperts” such as those lionized in Miss Levine’s book have counseled the Roman Catholic Church and other denominations for at least two decades about the harmlessness of pedophilia.
As the current media darling of the “anything goes” sexual revolution [how many authors get a pro-pedophile-favorable photo story in the New York Times?]; Miss Levine gets ink and ample space to disparage anyone who differs with her — such as Mrs. Reisman — who finds children worthy of protection rather than sexual exploitation.
Miss Levine’s letter to the editor in The Washington Times is as misguided and inaccurate as her collection of statistics on sex, incest, childhood, homosexuality, sex-offender recidivism, pedophile abuse, etc. drawn from notorious pedophile advocates [“`Children are sexual,’ says author,” April 25].
[…]
By Robert Knight May 2, 2003
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
When I was a news editor at the Los Angeles Times during the ’80s, I thought I had seen the outer limits of liberal moral meltdown. On issue after issue, most staff members took the politically correct line, from abortion to welfare, gun control, tax increases, porn “censorship” and “gay” rights.
But the paper has now outdone itself, even by its own liberal standards. By awarding a Los Angeles Times Book Prize to the odious “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex,” by Judith Levine, the Times has embraced pedophilia chic as its latest cause. I know some good Times staffers who must be mortified.
It seems those men who hang around the L.A. parks in raincoats stuffed with candy and porn tapes may be having a curious and undue influence in the inner sanctums of Times decision making.
Lest Times editors aver that this is an overstatement, consider that “Harmful to Minors,” published by the University of Minnesota Press, calls for lowering the age of sexual consent to 12, and teaching children about sex with other children and with adults, in all varieties.
[…]
I am sorry, but I can hardly stomach some of these articles, when I think about the children who are victims. However, to fully understand political statements made without reverting to hypocrisy on these issues, I thought it worthwhile to provide some references how liberal culture changed during the past three decades. I hope on the issue of pedophile rights, we have hit a wall, especially when we fail to protect the innocent children involved.
Recent diary at dKos —
Q: Dutch Justice Well Organized & Exemplary? A: No.
by creve coeur Sun Mar 20th, 2005
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
This is no longer a secret as it was covered in the press and covered in Dkos.
This is a superb diary but you know what, I am boycotting Pope Benedict XVI.
The oppositve of love is not hate, it is indifference.
This is a point included in the infamous letter to Bishops during the summer of 2004.
My emphasis. It is clear the Pope Benedict XVI believes that waging war and capitol punishment are less serious issues than abortion. Considering the magnitude of war, this is astounding. That women might have a greater need of safe medical abortions during a time of war does not seem to factor into the Pope’s compassionate view of 50% of humanity.
.
Fall 2003 – Religion In The News
On August 6, CBS “Evening News” led by announcing a “surprising development” in the Catholic scandal. The headline was: “CBS NEWS uncovers the Vatican’s secret orders to conceal sex abuse by priests.” Anchor Scott Pelley then introduced the story by saying, “For decades, some priests abused children, and their superiors tried to keep it quiet. Now it turns out the cover-up was inspired by an order from the highest levels of the Vatican.” …
Big news, indeed. Correspondent Vince Gonzales then reported that a “confidential Vatican document obtained by CBS News lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests. Anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.”
First, the August 6 story, which was repeated twice on the morning of August 7, created the misimpression that the network had broken the story–something the large pool of journalists who have been covering the Catholic scandal recognized instantly. In fact, the story was actually broken on July 29 by Kathleen A. Shaw, a veteran religion writer at the Worcester Telegram and Gazette in Massachusetts. A version of the story moved that day on the Associated Press. Similar stories then appeared in the Boston Herald and the Lawrence Eagle Tribune. …
The Telegram and Gazette, Herald and the Orange County Register in California also made it perfectly clear that plaintiff’s lawyers had distributed the document widely to journalists. “The document’s existence was first reported last week in the Worcester Telegram and Gazette in Massachusetts,” Jim Hinch of the Register wrote on August 8. Houston attorney Daniel Shea, who had clients in Massachusetts, told Hinch that he had given the documents first to the Telegram and Gazette‘s Shaw because “he had worked closely with her on past stories about lawsuits.” …
The job of sorting out the pieces was taken on by the Washington Post‘s Alan Cooperman, in a solid 1,257-word report published on August 25. He, too, emphasized the legal context of the dispute: “Plaintiff’s attorneys in sex abuse lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Church are brandishing a new weapon–or, actually–a rather old one: a 1962 Vatican document that some say is `the smoking gun’ in a conspiracy to cover up sex crimes by priests.”
Cooperman reported that Shea, whom he described as circulating the document, was still insisting that Crimen sollicitationis is “not just a smoking gun, but a nuclear bombshell” that “shows that the Vatican has been providing instruction to all bishops in the United States to obstruct justice…That’s called a criminal conspiracy.” …
The Rev. John Beal, a professor of canon law at Catholic University in Washington, told Cooperman that the bulk of the document did indeed deal with the rare and complicated problem of “a confessor who tries to seduce or lure a penitent into a sexual sin…whether or not the act takes place in the confessional.” …
IMHO – and conclusion – the British press is once again creating smoke to fan their own fire!
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité