How to call the infallible to account.... (re: The Pope)

Yes, I am referring to the current Pontiff and yes, I know he is only infallible in matters of doctrine when in 'full communion' with the church. That is not my point. My point for discussion is much more prosaic and easy to address. Should the Pope be immune from questioning and potential prosecution? He is, of course, because he is a head of state. In fact he is probably more immune from prosecution than anyone on earth. Even former heads of state have been severely inconvenienced by people pursuing them for their deeds. It is surprising, perhaps, to learn that 67 former heads of state have been prosecuted since 1990.Popes however only become former when they are beyond the reach of prosecuters.Ratzinger/Benedict has certainly got some serious questions to face if he ever did stand in the dock. There is little doubt that he was heavily involved in covering up cases of priests abusing children back in 1990s. George Robinson (UN Judge) has joined calls by other notables such as Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens for the Pope to be prosecuted for charges relating to child molestation and conspiracy.Several questions arise:a) How can a church headed by a suspected criminal claim any moral authority?b) Can the Pope be prosecuted under provisions of the UN court - originally brought in to deal with Milosvitch? The principle of 'universal juristiction' is being openly suggested. Is this practical?c) Is it not time that the whole 'Vatican' show was brought to an end? The ridiculous charade of a square in the middle of Italy's capital, measuring just over 100 acres, being legally recognised as a state unto itself, is surely becomming not just anachronistic but actually risible. If heads of state are prepared to play these silly games of makebelieve then how do they expect their citizens to take them seriously?I throw this out because, as an ex-catholic, I feel some involvement still with the church, In fact I have a forced involvement since I tried to have my parish register records destroyed several years ago in accordance with what I understood to be the Data Protection Act provisions of section 9. This was flatly refuses - once baptised a catholic then a catholic you remain. I feel some shame but much more anger that the institution I was brought up in is now led by this particular Pope and that he looks like not only has he no morals he actually believes that he has done nothing wrong - something which requires so much self-delusion, if indeed the strong evidence against him holds up, is surely bordering on the psychotic spectrum?Discuss....Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Put in more blank lines.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(re: The Pope)" to the topic title.

Hmm...that is an interesting perception. I think it may well be true for western countries but Catholicism is growing in Asia and Africa so what we are seeing is a realignment. At the current rate Catholicism will be an Afro-Asian religion within a century or so.
I would like to believe you are correct, and that it would gradually fade away, becoming ever less relevant, but I don't see that at all. The Catholic leadership is used to power - it ran the world for over a millenium and it isn't going to fade away into the night willingly.
Just think about the current position. Imagine a country or another religion where the head of that state/religion was, almost certainly, involved in a paedophile conspiracy. Can you imagine that they would survive in post? Yet do we see any comment on this from other leaders? Not a word. The only serious criticism is coming from the usual sources one would expect.
The Catholic church is now, IMHO, a thoroughly malign agency. The church has had the opportunity, over my lifetime, to modernise, to move towards a more liberal theology, to end some of the destructive adherence to dogma - the outrageous position on condoms, the scientifically illiterate position on birth control and sex in general (blocking conception is a moral sin, masturbation is a mortal sin etc etc), the refusal to shift from the bigotted position on homosexuality and gender role. I wonder how many Africans have died as a direct consequence of the Catholic position on condoms?
Given the chance to reform what have we actually seen? The election of two reactionary Popes who have, if anything, hardened the Church position on these matters.Why would the Church do this? Remember that we are dealing with some very great thinkers and strategists who are experts in real-politik.
Part of the answer must be in the changing demographic - the decline in European Catholicism and the shift to the East and to africa. We know that African churches and congregations are deeply conservative in their attitudes, so it seems that the RC Church is positioning itself to attract the conservative Christians and is more or less writing-off the liberal European tradition...

Yes, but the US has established several such precedents that it would be best for the rest of us to disregard - pre-emptive war, 'unlawful combatants', extraordinary rendition and so on. They are not really precedents in the sense that others could do the same - the US is normally pretty clear that it will do what it wants to you, but you had better not do the same to it. Hussein was technically nothing new under international law - the illegality was the original invasion. Once that had happened then Hussein was de-facto no longer head of state. Noriega was similar.
The question is really whether the existing 'functional immunity' which is assumed under international treaties and agreements, is binding in all cases or whether, for example, the ICC could try an existing HOS. There is a sort of precedent with the current trial of Charles Tayor in Sierra Leone. The UN appointed Special Court ruled that his position as HOS was not sufficient to grant immunity from it's juristiction. He was, however, already 'ex' by that time so it is more of an indiction of the way things are moving than an actual case.

I have a lot of sympathy with that view, but it has dangers as well.
You will probably have noticed the Archbishops of Canterbury (former and present) have been making noises about atheists over the last couple of years. Carey had his pop last year
404
Is the Church of England still in God's own country?and Williams has been spewing his nonsense for some while:
Rowan Williams hits out at atheist Dawkins
The Times & The Sunday TimesNow this in itself is fine - in fact one could take it as evidence that their cages are well and truly rattled. The problem is that the general public have a perception of Rowan Williams as an academic, gentle-spoken, considered and reasonable man. In fact, before he was appointed I did some research on him myself - interested to know who the next head of the CoE actually was, and the record is exactly what the public perceive - scholarly and considered.
The truth is somewhat different. He is actually a buffoon, and when you cut through the academic image I don't think he is as bright as people give credit for - in fact I'm certain of it. I've read some of his theological works - like all theology it is often tautologous, self-referential and pretty turgid stuff, but he has an extra quality of disingenuity.
His private views seem fairly plain to me - good old fashioned liberal/left - -which is fine. He was appointed knowing that his major role is to try and hold the church together and the way he has gone about it is not fine. His statements are often incoherent, so anxious is he to keep the evangelical nutters and the conservative bigots on-side. He has sold whatever principles he had for the sake of being 'the peacemaker' which any real philosopher (I hate the fact that theologists are often called philosophers) would have known was a very bad deal.What he should have done, and should still do, is stick to his principles (if he still has any) and let the bigots join the catholic church when women are made Bishops, and let the African branches of the church sever the links when gay clergy are properly recognised. By trying to hold them together he has pleased nobody within the church, and instead of lancing the boil, he has let it fester.So, why is that a problem for us non-believers? As I say, he still has public support as a 'nice man' and many people who I would call 'social church going agnostics' - the majority of the CofE - will be dragged into his aparent current tactic - the oldest one in the book - when in trouble, find a scapegoat. Hence the attack on atheists when Williams knows fine well that he cannot defeat Dawkins in debate and has no real complaint about the behaviour of atheists in general. It is a tawdry and unworthy thing he does, and I believe he knows it - which makes it even more despicable. The straw-man has always been the choice of tyrants and now it is the choice of the misguided Williams.
The trouble is that he will carry a lot of support with him.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Have you read the details? He wa the head of a 'fixit squad' within the Vatican. When the paedophile charges started to surface he announced a new theological tool - the 'Crimen+Sollicitationis'. Basically it was a doctrinal instruction to Bishops and Clergy of how they must handle abuse allegations. They were forbidden to involve the police or other authorities and instructed to refer the matter to him at the Vatican, and he would then 'deal with it'.
http://www.usao.edu/...cretarium/crimensollicitationis01.htm
http://www.usao.edu/~facshaferi/secretarium/secretarium.htm
That in itself is worthy of a trial - conspiracy to withhold evidence, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - those would be two charges that immediately spring to mind.
Once the guilty (or to be precise, some guilty and some merely accused) priests were in Ratzinger's sights, he arranged for them to shift to a different parish and resume their priestly role. Several possible charges might be appropriate for that - concealing evidence, reckless endangerment etc...And this is just what we know....Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

So you are saying that a trial of a HOS requires a different standard of evidence? Guilty beyond reasonable doubt does for me, so I cannot agree with that for fairly obvious reasons.
There is clearly much more in the Vatican archives and what would really make my year is if a prosecution WAS launched - there would undoubtedly be court instructions to reveal the archives. What a lot we would then learn.........

I think that is too simplistic. Look back to the beginning of last century. A Jesuit was heavily involved in the Big Bang theory. The pope was genuinely 'into' science.
Now, OK you can say that the BB theory was great for catholicism because it shows the universe had a start and therefore potential for a God to start it, but I think that is too cynical. Even the current mob accept evolution and other science which it would be futile to deny, so they CAN change....they just have chosen not to, which is both interesting and quite evil - in the real earthly sense of that word, not some spiritual notional sense (IMHO).

Well there is some evidence for what you say (about religions supporting each other) -- specifically Williams provides it. Remember when he upset the Catholics with his comment about the CC 'loosing all credibility'? That is a comment about a direct rival religion - many of the CofE conservative wing are, or have threatened to, leaving the CofE and joining the Catholics. And yet within 24 hours Williams gives a grovelling apology to catholics saying he had "no intention of criticising or attacking" the Catholic Church.
Now, that is a religion which is in direct competition with his and he is still reluctant to say what is obvious and evidently true, and when he does let it slip he quickly recants.
Then consider his comments on Islam. He goes on record to say the the introduction of Sharia Law into the UK 'seems unavoidable'.
Gobsmacking - as the reaction proved. Now why would he say something so stupid? Obvious. He was attacking the notion of one law for all. In other words it is a bit of special pleading - he is trying to set the scene for opt-outs for his own Church from proposed or possible legislation that he finds unacceptible - some elements of human rights legislation, assisted suicide, proposals for disestablishment, repeal of the Blasphemy laws...who knows what specific target he has, but this is the only sensible reading of his comments on the matter - why else make such an inflamatory, divisive and actually untrue statement?

Well this is certainly what they tried when it first started to break - that and the 'everyone picks on us' syndrome - claiming that everyone is after them and this is just another attempt to smear them. They have now realised that this is really not a good approach as the number of abuse cases climbs rapidly. The Pope now talks about 'sin within the church' and is playing down the role of 'the accuser'. Too little too late, of course, and entirely self-serving.

quote:

---

just because some haters suspect you of something deosn't mean you cant have moral authority.

---

It is a bit more than that. We have the documents available, and the fact that the order was given is not contested. The fact that Ratzinger was responsible is also not contested. So suspicion is not really the correct word. Since no trial is available then one cannot accurately say he is legally guilty, but then he could never be so, so we reduce to tautology.

quote:

---

think you are confusing sacrements here, the one you speak of is called, appropriately enough, Confirmation.

---

No, I am not. I meant what I said - baptism. Confirmation is, theologically, a perfection of baptism which enriches the member with the strength of the holy spirit. It isn't itself a membership requirement.
Once you are baptised, in Catholic theology, then you are a member of the church. The only way out is ex-communication and EVEN THAT does not mean that you are technically no longer a Catholic Christian - just that you are out of communion with the church.

quote:

---

Where I come from you are innocent until proven guilty, in court. Besides if he asked for forgiveness I would forgive him.

---

That is fine, as long as you are subject to court in the first place. The argument that someone who is not subject to judgement is entitled to the presumption of innocence is logically absurd.

quote:

---

I agree, but once you are confirmed the worst you can ever be (outside of excommunication), is a bad catholic. Since infants are often baptised in the RCC tradition, Confirmation, is really just the adult baptism where you, yourself agree, instead of someone else agreeing for you. If you have not recieved the Sacrement of Confirmation, then I don't think you have anything to worry about.

---

You are not correct, and in fact your view is heretical. I know Catholic theology pretty well, and what you are proposing is in direct conflict with that theology. The worst I can be, confirmed or unconfirmed, is a bad Catholic.
I have actually tested the proposition. I applied, under the provisions of the data protection act, to have my details removed from the parish register. No go, said the Church, that register is a permenant record of your entry into the catholic church, and is a matter of public record, therefore the Act allows us to refuse your request. It is a point of law which I would like to debate with them, but unfortunately I don't have sufficient spare money to do so at this point in time.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Where I come from you are innocent until proven guilty, in court. Besides if he asked for forgiveness I would forgive him.

---

That is fine, as long as you are subject to court in the first place. The argument that someone who is not subject to judgement by a court is nontheless entitled to the presumption of innocence is absurd.

quote:

---

I agree, but once you are confirmed the worst you can ever be (outside of excommunication), is a bad catholic. Since infants are often baptised in the RCC tradition, Confirmation, is really just the adult baptism where you, yourself agree, instead of someone else agreeing for you. If you have not recieved the Sacrement of Confirmation, then I don't think you have anything to worry about.

---

You are not correct, and in fact your view is heretical. I know Catholic theology pretty well, and what you are proposing is in direct conflict with that theology. The worst I can be, confirmed or unconfirmed, is a bad Catholic.
I have actually tested the proposition. I applied, under the provisions of the data protection act, to have my details removed from the parish register. No go, said the Church, that register is a permenant record of your entry into the catholic church, and is a matter of public record, therefore the Act allows us to refuse your request. It is a point of law which I would like to debate with them, but unfortunately I don't have sufficient spare money to do so at this point in time.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Confirmation is not an adult baptism. Baptism is a one-off erent. Confirmation is a repeatable sacrement. The two are distinct and complementary. To say otherwise is to go against Catholic dogma...

quote:

---

Although Confirmation is sometimes called the 'sacrament of Christian maturity,' we must not confuse adult faith with the adult age of natural growth, nor forget that the baptismal grace is a grace of free, unmerited election and does not need 'ratification' to become effective.

---

Catechism 1308Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Catholic dogma is only difficult if you forget what you are doing and leave any trace of critical thinking in place. Then, of course, you will get nowhere. The first step is to realise that it is meaningless. Then it becomes relatively easy to learn chunks of catechism and scriptural material. The catechisms cannot, of course, be derived from first principles because there are no such principles. We must therefore treat them as axioms - they are true because they are true - which in turn means you have to learn them.All Catholics need to be able to juggle two or three mutually contradictory ideas at any single time, but with sufficient practice it is possible to hold as many as 9 mutually contradictory ideas in the air at once. * * I believe the Pope may be having a crack at the record soon when he issues his next Encyclical. Rumour has it that he will attempt the Trinity tease, the Transubstantiation twist and the condom curse all in the same encyclical and without the aid of a dictionary. The 5th Division light infantry Jesuits will be in close support with armour piercing depleted logic ordnance - known as Dumb-Dumb rounds.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.