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.

Thread copied here from the How to call the infallible to account.... (re: The Pope) thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Questions such as these have been raised in the press.My conclusion is that he has very little moral authority outside the Church, and that probably won't change much. It doesn't matter. We all know that he won't be prosecuted. I guess that's up to Italians and Catholics.It is looking as if the Roman Catholic Church won't collapse - it will just fade away. It seems to becoming increasing irrelevant, and too hide bound to do anything about that. At least that's the impression I get, looking from the outside.

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...

Not quite. The US has established the International Precedent that even sitting heads of state are not immune from arrest, questioning and prosecution. Ask Manuel Noriega and Saddam Husein.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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.

Too true. I wonder though what would happen if others used those precedents?Another question I have though is if the Pope has actually done something that rises to the height that justifies any charges or action? I agree that his behavior in the child molestation issues has been less then exemplary, but still see little there that would warrant much legal (criminal sense as opposed to civil) action.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I don't know whether or not the current Pope will ever be brought to trial. What's most important is that secularists and humanists keep up the pressure to rid religion of all it's privileges so that it is no longer seen as a special case by the masses.It's my feeling that, in the UK at least, the majority are still willing to give religion special privilege and respect, even though most people don't go to church or think of themselves as being particularly religious. As long as that's the case, the politicians will be inclined to support mass opinion. However, I think we may be very close to the tipping point where that's no longer the case. I think a great deal has changed in just the last few years. We just need to keep up the pressure and support organisations like the National Secular Society who do a great job in lobbying and campaigning against religious privilege. The final straw will soon break the back.

It is destined and prophesied to soon come to an end. About seven years ago I did a thread (Message 1 still open) on Vatican City, i.e. the Mystery Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. It will be destroyed in one hour's time when it happens, likely by a nuclear bomb from an Islamic nation. Imo, it will eliminate Islam's greatest deterant to dominating the planet as is mandated in the Quran.The RCC doctrine of celabacy is nowhere supported by Jesus or his apostles. It becomes a suitable environment for sex deviancy of all kinds, humans being sexual creatures. What has surfaced is likely the tip of the iceburg and has likely been suppressed for centuries.Then there's the Dark Ages of the bloody inquisitions perpetrated by the popes and bishops of the diabolic system, like Islam coercing the sheeple into the system by the sword and persecution.This thing you mention about once a Catholic always a Catholic is just like Islam. Apostates and heretics who opt out are to be executed.Of course, as to the question of should the (alleged) infallible be held accountable, there's a whole lot of unaccountability going on in the world, like the ongoing genocides in Muslim African nations like Sudan which the world body ignores. Both are terrible and evil, but which is worse, pedophilia or genocide?As attested to here at EvC, the secularist constituency repettively blames Christianity for the non-Christian, non-NT Biblical RCC attrocities in arguing that Christianity is violent and evil. What the folks here either deliberately or ingnorantly blame on Christianity is contrary to what Jesus and his apostles taught in the NT.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buz, if you really think the greatest deterrent to Islam dominating the planet is a bunch of pederasts in dresses, you're even loonier than I ever suspected, and that's saying a lot. Well, that explains those roving bands of bishops I see, gunning people down in the streets. Exactly how long have you been in an irreversible vegetative state?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Speaking of priviledges, aren't the facilities of the NSS (above) exempt from taxes? That's a priviledge not applied to the rest of us.It has long been my position that all organizations, religious and otherwise, should be subject to all taxes that the general population is subject to. That would put an end to a whole lot of corruption and special priviledges. It would even up the tax levies so nobody pays much as well.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Really? You're subjected to taxation by the British government? Curious.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

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.

That is very likely where things are heading.Rowan is facing a pretty serious drive towards splitting up the Anglican Communion but that is also true within the RCC. In particular, some of the practices and policies of the South American RCC factions are constantly challenging the Vatican.In the Anglican Communion the US Episcopal Church has definitely become a challenge for Rowan and it shows no signs of going away anytime soon.The thing that must be remembered though that as with all long term organizations, there are intentionally designed and created stumbling blocks in teh way of very rapid change.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Subbie, all this message of yours does is to show how meanspirited you are toward debate counterparts and how little you know about the Quran, the Haddith and Sunnas, all equal in Islam doctrine.It also implicates ignorance on your part as to how The RCC and Islam, both evil, oppressive and violent when they wield power, have kept one another at bay over the centuries; most of the religious wars being between these two political-religious power players. The both strive toward integration of church and state, the RCC, essentially ruling Europe by proxy, during the Dark Age centuries.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.