I guess he wasn't elected for his memory.

[Shockeye]

Pope apologizes twice for being forgetful

2 hours, 43 minutes ago

CASTELGANDOLFO, Italy (Reuters) -

Pope Benedict apologized for being forgetful Wednesday -- not once but twice.

At the end of his weekly general audience, the Pope had left the window overlooking the courtyard of his summer residence where thousands of people had listened to him deliver greetings in various languages.

He then returned and joked:

"I ask your forgiveness. I forgot the most important greeting -- the one to Italian-speaking pilgrims," he said, laughing.

The 78-year-old Pope then read the greeting in Italian, turned away and was leaving, but aides reminded him that he had forgotten something else. He returned to the window yet again.

"Today, I am forgetting the most important things. It appears that I am already partly in Cologne. They told me: 'You forgot the most essential thing, the blessing'," he said.

He then delivered his blessing and, still smiling and laughing about his two oversights, returned inside the summer residence.

Benedict leaves Thursday for Cologne in his native Germany to conclude the Roman Catholic Church's World Youth Day festivities.

[Shockeye]

Pope seeks immunity over sex abuse suit
August 17, 2005 - 10:44AM

Lawyers for Pope Benedict XVI have asked US President George W. Bush to declare the pontiff immune from liability in a lawsuit that accuses him of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys by a seminarian in Texas, court records show.

The Vatican's embassy in Washington sent a diplomatic memo to the State Department on May 20 requesting the US government grant the pope immunity because he is a head of state, according to a May 26 motion submitted by the pope's lawyers in US District Court for the Southern Division of Texas in Houston.

Joseph Ratzinger is named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit. Now Benedict XVI, he's accused of conspiring with the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston to cover up the abuse during the mid-1990s. The suit is seeking unspecified monetary damages.

In Washington, US State Department spokeswoman Gerry Keener, said today that the pope already is considered a head of state and automatically has diplomatic immunity. Keener said Benedict doesn't have to ask for immunity and Bush doesn't have to grant it.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

International legal experts said today it would be "virtually impossible" for the case to succeed because the pope, as a head of state, had diplomatic immunity. "There's really no question at all, not the vaguest legal doubt, that he's immune from the suit, period," said Paolo Carozza, an international law specialist at the University of Notre Dame Law School.

Nevertheless, lawyers for abuse victims say the case is significant because previous recent attempts to implicate the Vatican, the pope or other high-ranking church officials in US sex abuse proceedings have failed - primarily because of immunity claims and the difficulty serving top Vatican officials with US lawsuits.

"It has gone further than any suit before, and it should be instructive to the church that if evidence of their continued handling of these matters keeps coming to light and is inconsistent with fair play, that lawyers are going to pursue it," said Stephen Rubino, a New Jersey lawyer who is not involved but has handled hundreds of other cases of church sex abuse.

The three boys, identified in court documents as John Does I, II and III, allege that a Colombian-born seminarian on assignment at St. Francis de Sales church in Houston, Juan Carlos Patino-Arango, molested them during counselling sessions in the church in the mid-1990s.

Patino-Arango has been indicted in a criminal case by a Harris County, Texas, grand jury and is a fugitive from justice, the lawsuit says.

Attorney Daniel Shea, who is representing one of the three boys in the civil suit, said in a telephone interview today that then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who headed the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before becoming pope, was involved in a conspiracy to hide Patino-Arango's crimes and to help him escape prosecution.

In the lawsuit, Shea cited a May 18, 2001, letter from Ratzinger, written in Latin to bishops around the world, explaining that "grave" crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors would be handled by his congregation. The proceedings of special church tribunals handling the cases were subject to "pontifical secret," Ratzinger's letter says.

"Ratzinger's involvement arises out of this letter, which demonstrates the clear intent to conceal the crimes involved," Shea said.

The Vatican and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have insisted that the secret church procedures in the sex abuse case were not designed to cover up abuse nor to prevent victims from reporting crimes to law enforcement authorities. The document deals with church law - not keeping secrets from secular authorities, they say.

"To insinuate that this letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is part of a Vatican conspiracy is a total and complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the letter," Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza said in a statement. He heads the Galveston-Houston Archdiocese and is also named as a defendant in the suit.

A Vatican spokesman and attorneys for the pope declined to comment.

[Sky]

That's some representative for the ultimate being in the universe.

[Shockeye]

It's coming right for us!

[tazelbain]

I wonder if the cardinals were watching Stars Wars, saw the Emperor, and said "We got to get us one of those!"
Because they couldn't have down a better job if they had tried.

[Llava]

So much for infallible.

Oh well, THAT'S OUR POPE! *cue theme music*

[stray]

So much for infallible.

Oh well, THAT'S OUR POPE! *cue theme music*

I am by no means defending him (or "not" defending him, for that matter), but I'd just like to point out that the Catholic church only asserts that the pope is infallible in matters of teaching "faith and morals". Could apply here (according to their rules)...Or maybe not.

[Samwise]

And only in certain subsets of "faith and morals" issues at that.  Papal infallibility gets talked about a lot but is applied very very infrequently (about as often as Congress grants letters of marque).

[Sky]

And only in certain subsets of "faith and morals" issues at that.  Papal infallibility gets talked about a lot but is applied very very infrequently (about as often as Congress grants letters of marque).

How many compromises can these churches make before people call them on their bullshit?

Oh no, that wasn't infallible....but don't use a condom. God said so, we had brunch on Tuesday. Jesus brought donuts.

[Paelos]

And only in certain subsets of "faith and morals" issues at that.  Papal infallibility gets talked about a lot but is applied very very infrequently (about as often as Congress grants letters of marque).

How many compromises can these churches make before people call them on their bullshit?

Oh no, that wasn't infallible....but don't use a condom. God said so, we had brunch on Tuesday. Jesus brought donuts.

I hear Jesus likes bearclaws. MMMMM, bearclaw.

[Furiously]

I thought it was doughnuts ... They're holey.

[Sky]

I hear Jesus likes bearclaws. MMMMM, bearclaw.

Heh, the Homerism made me think of the Forbidden Donut.

[Samwise]

Best Homer quote ever:

"Lord, I know I should not eat Thee, but.... *CHOMP*  Mmmm... sacrilicious..."

[voodoolily]

So, if criminal heads of state are automatically granted immunity, does that mean that Sadam Hussein is just a guest?

[Roac]

So, if criminal heads of state are automatically granted immunity, does that mean that Sadam Hussein is just a guest?

He isn't in violation of US law.  Heads of state can be accountable to international law, or to the law of their own country.

[voodoolily]

So covering up child rape is legal in the US?

[Samwise]

No, I think the deal is that foreign heads of state aren't held accountable to US laws and legal proceedings.  They're held accountable under their own laws and under international law.  So if you wanted to prosecute the pope for war crimes under international law, you could do that, but you can't sue him under US law.

[voodoolily]

Still, does international or Italian law permit this kind of crime? And what about the fact that the crimes were committed in the US?

Edit: and not to derail, but why hasn't anyone prosecuted Bush for violating international war crime laws?

[Samwise]

Still, does international or Italian law permit this kind of crime? And what about the fact that the crimes were committed in the US?

No, but nobody's prosecuting him in an international or Vatican court (not even sure if the Vatican has a court system).  Not even sure what the procedure would be for that.

Where the crime was committed doesn't matter, AFAIK.  If Dubya went to Singapore and scribbled on a wall they still wouldn't get to cane him.

For more helpful information on diplomatic immunity, click here.

Edit: and not to derail, but why hasn't anyone prosecuted Bush for violating international war crime laws?

Because the US has lots of bombs and money?

[Yegolev]

Edit: and not to derail, but why hasn't anyone prosecuted Bush for violating international war crime laws?

Not to make this worse, but what governing body would do that?  Just sayin.

[Paelos]

Edit: and not to derail, but why hasn't anyone prosecuted Bush for violating international war crime laws?

Not to make this worse, but what governing body would do that?  Just sayin.

The winners make the rules. Crack a history book and that becomes fairly obvious.

[voodoolily]

Edit: and not to derail, but why hasn't anyone prosecuted Bush for violating international war crime laws?

Not to make this worse, but what governing body would do that?  Just sayin.

Canada? The Netherlands? France? Any democratic first-world country that doesn't need us for anything? (I don't think an embargo on maple syrup would hurt Canada too bad)

[Shockeye]

Canada needs us as a buffer between Mexico. We don't need them, but they need us.

France, Netherlands, etc need us since we pay 70% of the bill for NATO. Suck it, Europe.

[Merusk]

Still, does international or Italian law permit this kind of crime? And what about the fact that the crimes were committed in the US?

Edit: and not to derail, but why hasn't anyone prosecuted Bush for violating international war crime laws?

The Vatican is it's own country... so Italian law still wouldn't apply...

Then the problem of prosecuting under international law is you have to have arrested the accused.  There's where the bombs and army and what-for come in to play. If a someone were to be murdered on national Television and nobody cared to arrest or prosecute the criminal (or lacked the power to do so) it wouldn't matter how much of the law was violated. (Outside of 'Plains Justice.')

[Yegolev]

Edit: and not to derail, but why hasn't anyone prosecuted Bush for violating international war crime laws?

Not to make this worse, but what governing body would do that?  Just sayin.

Canada? The Netherlands? France? Any democratic first-world country that doesn't need us for anything? (I don't think an embargo on maple syrup would hurt Canada too bad)

I hear what you are saying, but the line for bringing charges against the administration is rather short.  Lots of leaders had a problem with putting troops into Iraq but the most that has come out of it is discussion or complaining.  This means other countries either do need the US for something, or they are afraid of retaliation.  Not necessarily an invasion since most places already have a US military base nearby, more likely economic penalties.  Being an American, though, I'm not too up-to-date on international affairs so I could be wrong.

[Roac]

This means other countries either do need the US for something, or they are afraid of retaliation.  Not necessarily an invasion since most places already have a US military base nearby, more likely economic penalties.  Being an American, though, I'm not too up-to-date on international affairs so I could be wrong.

Nah, that's pretty much right.  The US wasn't going to invade France just because it disagreed with us over Iraq, but the US will try to piss on anyone who doesn't get in line behind it.  It doesn't need to even be a full on sanction, but something as simple as kicking around their public image which can impact tourism.  Not exactly regime change, but that isn't neccessary when all you want to do is slap someone.  A few million or ten in tourism dollars can do that.  Tons of similar ways they can hit a country.

[Mesozoic]

And only in certain subsets of "faith and morals" issues at that.  Papal infallibility gets talked about a lot but is applied very very infrequently (about as often as Congress grants letters of marque).

How many compromises can these churches make before people call them on their bullshit?

Oh no, that wasn't infallible....but don't use a condom. God said so, we had brunch on Tuesday. Jesus brought donuts.

Infalibility does not apply here.  The fact that you don't understand Papal Infalibility does not make it a compromise.

[Murgos]

This means other countries either do need the US for something, or they are afraid of retaliation.  Not necessarily an invasion since most places already have a US military base nearby, more likely economic penalties.  Being an American, though, I'm not too up-to-date on international affairs so I could be wrong.

Nah, that's pretty much right.  The US wasn't going to invade France just because it disagreed with us over Iraq, but the US will try to piss on anyone who doesn't get in line behind it.  It doesn't need to even be a full on sanction, but something as simple as kicking around their public image which can impact tourism.  Not exactly regime change, but that isn't neccessary when all you want to do is slap someone.  A few million or ten in tourism dollars can do that.  Tons of similar ways they can hit a country.

While I could see France doing such a thing just to be assholes I would imagine the really real reason there aren't even the faint murmerings of someone bringing action is that nothing worthy of the action has actually happened.

[Sky]

I do understand that God didn't tell anyone to build the Vatican city and elect a Pope. Neither did Jesus.

So my understanding of anything beyond that is moot, anyway.

[Mesozoic]

Jesus made Peter his representative on Earth:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Peter is considered to be the first Pope.  Of course Jesus wasn't around to personally pick each subsequent Pope, that was done by (fallible) humans.

Rome subsequently became a central location of the Catholic faith due to the fact that Peter was martyred there.  The conversion of that city  - that even Rome would become Christian - was understandably pretty central to the ascendency of Christianity.  Later the Bishop of Rome became the de facto "head Bishop," or Pope.

Except for certain appearances by Mary, the Holy Familiy has been pretty mum on the details of the faith for 2,000 years - so yeah, we're on our own as far as the implementation goes.  No official endorsement of any act, proclamation, election, or city.  I also ate lunch today, despite no official word from On High.

[HaemishM]

Canada? The Netherlands? France? Any democratic first-world country that doesn't need us for anything? (I don't think an embargo on maple syrup would hurt Canada too bad)

Please to name one.

[stray]

Jesus made Peter his representative on Earth:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Peter is considered to be the first Pope.  Of course Jesus wasn't around to personally pick each subsequent Pope, that was done by (fallible) humans.

Rome subsequently became a central location of the Catholic faith due to the fact that Peter was martyred there.  The conversion of that city  - that even Rome would become Christian - was understandably pretty central to the ascendency of Christianity.  Later the Bishop of Rome became the de facto "head Bishop," or Pope.

Except for certain appearances by Mary, the Holy Familiy has been pretty mum on the details of the faith for 2,000 years - so yeah, we're on our own as far as the implementation goes.  No official endorsement of any act, proclamation, election, or city.  I also ate lunch today, despite no official word from On High.

Rome was considered the "first among equals" for a good thousand years. Just like Peter was first among equals (But even he deferred to the other apostles as a whole. One time, he was even harshly criticized by Paul, and in turn, Peter admitted his mistake. Infallible he was not).

Anyways, all churches (what we now consider "Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox") were one and the same. "Catholic" was just a Latin word for "Universal", and Rome was more like a mediator between the different regions.

The minute the Romans removed the "among equals" thing (for political/power reasons, not religious), every other church rejected them. Every one. The Bishop of Rome was excommunicated and replaced, and in turn, the authority of Peter taken away from him. Problem is: He started his own illigitimate faction -- One that lives on to this day. One that is very susceptible to the "gates of Hades" because it has no recognized authority outside of itself (the last one thousand years of western religious history speaks for itself).

There is an authority of Peter in Rome still, but it has nothing to do with the Vatican.

[Mesozoic]

I'm not arguing that there isn't a long sordid history to Roman Catholicism, a history that I'm learning as I go.  I was trying to define Papal Infalibility, and then to repudiate Sky's sugguestion that Roman Catholicism is wrong because it's based in a city and has a leader.

[stray]

I'm not arguing that there isn't a long sordid history to Roman Catholicism, a history that I'm learning as I go.  I was trying to define Papal Infalibility, and then to repudiate Sky's sugguestion that Roman Catholicism is wrong because it's based in a city and has a leader.

Ah, no problem...I was just trying to say that papal infallibility was an alien concept to the Catholic church before the 10th century. And still is. There is a universally recognized authority with Peter, however, but the Roman Catholic church is another thing (imho). It's almost a different religion as far as I'm concerned....Kind of in the same way that Roman Catholics see Protestants. They can lay claim to Peter's authority if they want, but it doesn't mean that I believe they're the ones in Rome who have it.

[voodoolily]

Nah, that's pretty much right.  The US wasn't going to invade France just because it disagreed with us over Iraq, but the US will try to piss on anyone who doesn't get in line behind it.  It doesn't need to even be a full on sanction, but something as simple as kicking around their public image which can impact tourism.  Not exactly regime change, but that isn't neccessary when all you want to do is slap someone.  A few million or ten in tourism dollars can do that.  Tons of similar ways they can hit a country.

Seems to me the US condemning France, for example, as unsympathetic to the US agenda, and thereby potentially impacting US tourism to France would kind of be doing France a favor. I mean, the Americans that would take that seriously are the very people that make France (and Europe in general) find Americans to be fat, stupid and annoying. The French would be happier if Republican Americans never came to their country. And what does Holland need us for? We don't buy that many tulips or clompen. Their biggest cash crop is prohibited by US laws anyhow, and no one who visits the Netherlands for the reasons that most Americans do are gonna stop going because Bush says so. I don't know what percent of the French (or Dutch) economy comes from tourism from the US, but that's really neither here nor there. I was just bitching about Bush for no good reason in particular.