A Stitch in Haste

This fact pattern touches on so many areas of law about which I know absolutely nothing about that I’m just going to post it and ask some layperson-style questions.

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night 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, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.

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'.
...
Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'. The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.

It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases 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.

I don’t want to mire myself in local law, but by way of analogy here’s the primary federal obstruction of justice statute, 18 USC 1512:

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to --
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to --
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
...
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense
...
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

So if (and it's a huge "if") then-Cardinal Ratzinger, in his capacity as Grand Inquisitor, ordered bishops not to forward allegations of abuse to the police without premission from the Vatican, for up to ten years after the accusing child turns 18, upon pain of excommunication, then that would seem to clearly satisfy “knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person” to “hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge ... of information relating to the commission or possible commission of [an] offense.” (Again, I am only using the federal statute as a proxy – local law might well be different).

Other thoughts:

--It is being suggested, perhaps persuasively, that this letter only refers to ecclesiastical law (i.e., discipline within the Roman Catholic Church itself). Fair enough, but the response to that defense also carries weight: the letter does not say priests and bishops should, or even may, go to the police concurrently with their internal ecclesiastical investigations. Can’t something unsaid be as intimidating as something that is said? And the letter also mentions keeping evidence "confidential". That’s very dangerous territory: we we say “evidence” are we talking about testimony in an ecclesiastical tribunal or an altar boy’s stained ceremonial garb?

--Again I’m out of my element, but I presume heads of state enjoy diplomatic immunity. On the other hand, does that extend to criminal acts committed before one became a head of state? And however little I know about diplomatic law, I know even less about extradition law, so I won’t touch that either. Or perhaps declaring the Pope persona non grata would be a suitable alternative (I don’t think anyone expects Benedict XVI to visit here anyway).

--Could you imagine the firestorm in this country and around the world if a local D.A. sought an indictment against the Pope for obstruction of justice, or if a judge issued an arrest warrant? And you think the world hates America now...

Hat tip to Notes from the (Legal) Underground

U.S. Roman Catholic Church's credit card statement:

--Child abuse settlements and judgments: $1 billion since 1950.

--Wrecked childhoods: priceless.
--Lost membership: priceless.
--Inability to recruit clergy: priceless
--Lost credibility: priceless.
--Lost influence in the Vatican: priceless.
--Crises of faith: priceless.

Somewhere along the line,
Well you know it's just a matter of time.
When the fun falls through
And the rent comes due,
Somewhere along the line.
--Billy Joel, "Somewhere Along the Line"

POST SCRIPT: Meanwhile, the man who fiddled while everywhere except Rome burned is on the express train to sainthood. Go figure.

Pope Benedict XVI refuses to condemn Islamo-terrorism.

But he doesn't hesitate to condemn gay marriage.

Shame on every practicing gay Catholic, especially in terror-target countries such as the U.S. and U.K., who refuses to renounce and denounce the Vatican. Staying in that church may well be the single worst form of self-loathing a gay person can manifest.

POST SCRIPT: Speaking of condemnation, some Roman Catholic cardinals want to refuse baptism to the children of gay couples. For those who believe in Catholic shamanism, that means (perhaps) spending eternity condemned to limbo.

I really wonder sometimes whether most Catholics truly understand just how utterly dumb their religion is.

UPDATE #1A: Israel is also rather perturbed at the Vatican's refusal to condemn Islamo-terror. Go figure.

UPDATE #1B: In response to the comments, I suppose I can accept the idea of a "secular Catholicism" comparable to "secular Judaism" in which those of "Catholic heritage" (?) celebrate, as Damien says, "a tradition rich in art, literature, music, wisdom and heroic lives." I like medieval religious art as much as the next 21st Century gay atheist, but that doesn't mean I have to "tolerate" (their term) today's authoritarian Roman Catholic Church bureaucracy.

Back in April I sarcastically asked whether Pope Benedict XVI should be indicted for conspiracy over his alleged role in cover-ups concerning the Catholic Church's various boy-rape scandals.

Well there actually is, for now, a civil lawsuit against the Pope:

A U.S. lawyer said on Wednesday he will press ahead with a lawsuit alleging Pope Benedict conspired to cover up the abuse of three boys by a seminary student in Texas, despite the Pontiff's request for diplomatic immunity.

"This diplomatic move has stopped the suit right in its early stages," Daniel Shea, who represents one of three plaintiffs in the unprecedented civil suit, told Reuters.

"But there are various avenues we can go down depending on what the (U.S.) State Department does next," he said, adding that he hoped to take a deposition from the Pope as early as the end of this year.

Of course the Pope is immune from liability as a head of state. But there are other avenues available to the plaintiffs, namely suing the Vatican itself and seizing its assets here in the U.S. to satisfy any awards against American priests and dioceses.

It would also not be outrageous to consider declaring the Pope persona non grata in response to his invocation of diplomatic immunity (not that he has any plans to travel here anyway).

There are still far too many senior Catholic officials in the Vatican and the U.S. who seem to think this is all some kind of joke, even after a billion dollars of judgments and settlements.

Perhaps U.S. Marshals seizing some cathedrals, or the State Department denying entry to a cardinal or two, might garner their attention.

Or perhaps the boy-rape will just continue unabated.

As expected, the federal government has told a Texas court that Pope Benedict XVI is entitled to immunity from liability in a child molestation lawsuit:

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Peter Keisler said in Monday's filing that, as pope, Benedict enjoys immunity as the head of a state — the Vatican. He said allowing the lawsuit to proceed would be "incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests."
...
Many lawsuits stemming from the U.S. church sex abuse crisis have named the pope, the Vatican and other high-ranking church officials, but they failed because the officials could never be served with the papers. This case got further than most recent ones because Ratzinger was served with the documents.

For background on then-Cardinal Ratzinger's alleged role in the cover-up conspiracy in this particular case, see my previous post.

This is of the course the correct outcome — heads of state get immunity, deal with it. But any headline that keeps the scandalous behavior of the Vatican and other leaders within the Catholic Church in the news and reminds people of their complicity in the Great American Boy-Rape Crisis is beneficial.

Pope Benedict and his co-conspirators may not be liable in U.S. courts, but they are despicable nonetheless. And it doesn't hurt to keep reminding people of that.

Other thoughts at Conglomerate.

How on earth can this headline:

Philly Priests Cleared in Sex Abuse Case

be considered accurate for this story:

The Philadelphia Archdiocese concealed sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests for four decades, a grand jury has found, but no criminal charges can be brought against the church or its clergy because of the limits of state law.

The grand jury, convened more than three years ago, issued a scathing report Wednesday that documents assaults by more than 60 priests. It explored the possibility of charges against the archdiocese, but said the organization can't be prosecuted because it is an unincorporated association rather than a corporation.

"Archdiocese leaders have endangered and harmed children in parishes and schools by keeping known abusers in ministry and transferring discovered abusers to assignments where parents and potential victims are unaware of the priests' sexual" behavior, the report said.

The report names 63 priests "whose abusive behavior was well-documented in archdiocese files and by witnesses who testified" before the grand jury.
...
In the Philadelphia area, church officials have said that 44 priests had been "credibly" accused of sexual assaults since the 1950s but only one priest in the archdiocese has been indicted.

How is that being "cleared"?!?

Refusing to indict is being "cleared." An acquittal is being "cleared." A confession by the real culprit is being "cleared." An admission of police misconduct is being "cleared."

But sneaking past the statute of limitations and being immune as an unincorporated entity are hardly being "cleared." That's just being lucky. And sleazy. And despicable.

I might expect such an intellectually fraudulent spin from the Vatican press office, or from journalistic imposters like Bill O'Reilly or Matt Drudge. But from a supposedly unbiased service like the AP? That's either unforgivable bias or unforgivable ignorance of basic legal journalism.

Either way, shame on them. This ongoing scandal is far too important for sloppy reporting.

More thoughts at FaerieWizard.

First Philadelphia, now Chicago:

Eleven priests suspected of sexual misconduct with minors more than 20 years ago have been barred from clerical work, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago said Monday.

The men cannot present themselves as priests, engage in public ministries or act as an agent of the archdiocese, although they have not been removed from the priesthood, said Chancellor Jimmy Lago.
...
The statue [sic] of limitations has expired in all the cases, officials said.
...
"I think that this begrudging, long overdue action ... does not relieve Cardinal George of his responsibility," said Barbara Blaine, president of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. "There's 11 known child molesters out there that are not going to be found on any sex offender registries."

Maybe the answer is to eliminate the statute of limitations for child molestation. In First Amendment law, child pornography is considered "just different" and receives no constitutional protection, none whatsoever. There's generally no statute of limitations for murder, and some jurisdictions are even eliminating the statute of limitations for sex crimes whenever DNA evidence is available indefinitely.

So why not say what we're already saying in another context: that child molestation is sui generis and allow authorities to go after pervert priests and other molesters no matter how long it takes to discover their identities?

Maybe that, along with another billion dollars or so of judgments and settlements — might finally get the church bureaucracy's attention.

A gay New York socialite (I'm not quite sure what makes one a "socialite," but I'll blindly trust the MSM on this one) was, unsurprisingly, molested as a child by a Roman Catholic priest. He is, unsurprisingly, suing the Church for the terrible torts that were committed against him.

Nothing new in any of that.

Here's the twist: part of his damages claim is that the molestation "turned him gay" --

"I believe that my life would be very different now," said Enright, 51, dressed in a custom-made English suit and French cuffed shirt. "I'd probably be married, living in Greenwich, with four children in boarding school.
...
"I had a completely straight life in business, socially on Park Avenue and Fifth Avenue," he said, noting that he dated women in the 1980s. "Then there was the other world, which was slinking around in Greenwich Village gay bars, finding mates."

Let's take his claims at face value, if only for a moment. Assuming (falsely) that he was in fact, "turned gay," then what exactly are the compensable damages? How exactly is he less well off financially for being gay? Alternatively, what "pain and suffering" did he experience? (And remember, it would have to be the "pain and suffering" not of being gay in a discriminatory society but rather of being "turned gay.")

There is another huge defect in his lawsuit. The guy is now 51 years old. Shouldn't there be statute of limitations (or, for the lawyers, laches) defenses?

I do feel bad for him, as I feel bad for all victims of sex crimes. But I can't help wondering whether this middle-aged "socialite" is just seeking the limelight one last time (or, alternatively, just making some headline-grabbing noise to facilitate a quick shakedown settlement).

By all means sue for the molestation, if the action is not barred as untimely. But save the "turned gay" nonsense for your fellow "socialites."

The Roman Catholic Church has found quite a convenient solution to its problem of rampant pedophile and pederast priests:

The fourth lawsuit in less than two weeks accusing an Alaska-based Catholic priest of sexual abuse was filed Thursday, fueling a conviction among critics that Alaska was a dumping ground for problem clergy.
...
Rural Alaska was a prime go-to place to send abusive priests, given its isolation and cultural reverence for authority figures, such as elders and priests, said Patrick Wall, a former Benedictine priest and consultant for a Costa Mesa, Calif., law firm that has worked on more than 300 church abuse allegations nationwide, including Alaska.
...
Even though only [sic] 12 of Alaska's 500 priests who served between 1959 and 2002 face allegations -- a fraction of nearly 4,400 priests accused nationwide -- people like Wall say the spate of allegations has only begun.

"Only" 12 out of 500? "Only" a 2.4% pervert rate? Could you imagine if "only" 2.4% of a school's teachers were child molesters, "only 2.4% of a camp's counselors were convicted sex offenders, or if "only" 2.4% of a practice's dentists fondled their anesthetized patients' breasts?

Will this be the Catholic Church's new defense in its seemingly endless child molestation scandal? "Well, when you think about it, 2.4% isn't all that bad."

Perhaps Alaska's hack politicians should spend less time building "bridges to nowhere" and more time looking out for their constituents. (See also my previous post.)

(Via Fark.)

"The candidate for ordained ministry, therefore, must reach emotional maturity. That maturity renders him able to put himself in the proper relation with men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood toward the ecclesial community entrusted to him."

That's an excerpt from the Vatican's now-released Instruction concerning the criteria of vocational discernment regarding persons with homosexual tendencies, considering their admission to seminary and to Holy Orders , available at this site.

Right below the banner ad for an on-line Catholic dating service.

What was that again about "emotional maturity" and "the proper relation with men and women"?

In case you think that the Vatican's rewriting of doctrine and dogma applies only to what they consider the most pathetic, decrepit and disposable segment of society (i.e., me), well, take solace -- they're also rewriting history at the other end of the worthiness spectrum:

Krakow's Roman Catholic archbishop spoke Tuesday of a possible miracle performed by Pope John Paul II in France that a church tribunal will focus on as the Vatican pursues its case for beatification.
...
The Vatican needs proof of a miracle before it can proclaim John Paul eligible for sainthood, and a church tribunal from the archdiocese of Krakow, Poland, has been gathering evidence from witnesses.

They need a miracle from John Paul II to make him a saint, so of course you know -- you know -- that they'll find one. Either that, or they'll just dumb down the definition of "miracle" to suit their needs.

On that, you can have faith...

---

And it's not just human sexuality or the supernatural abilities of a dead pope that the Vatican can forever "update" with the stroke of a pen. Nope, they can even change the cosmos itself, in all its dimensions:

According to Italian media reports on Tuesday, an international theological commission will advise Pope Benedict to eliminate the teaching about limbo from the Catholic catechism.

The Catholic Church teaches that babies who die before they can be baptised go to limbo, whose name comes from the Latin for "border" or "edge", because they deserve neither heaven nor hell.

Last October, seven months before he died, Pope John Paul asked the commission to come up with "a more coherent and enlightened way" of describing the fate of such innocents.

In other words, replace the old nonsense with some fresh nonsense, that will no longer torture the ignorant faithful parents of children who die unbaptized with cruel, sadistic dogma about eternal non-Heaven for their lost babies.

---

Being an atheist, I simply cannot imagine how embarrassed and humiliated most Western, educated, reasonable Catholics must be feeling these days, especially here in America. Your church is now the laughingstock of the world, and rightly so.

Which invites the question: isn't it time for you lay Catholics to start doing something about it?

When a Roman Catholic priest molests a child, he is not excommunicated, but typically just reassigned to a new parish — or maybe given a "desk job" away from the laity. Apparently violating, sometimes repeatedly, a priest's holy orders, the law and a few Commandments does not rise to a excommunicable offense.

Mess with the Church's lust for worldly possessions, however, and you are of course Hellbound:

St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke has excommunicated a priest and the board of directors of a traditionally Polish parish that resisted his efforts to put the parish's property and assets under his control.

In an archdiocesan newspaper published Friday, Burke said the Rev. Marek Bozek and St. Stanislaus Kostka's six lay directors committed an act of schism when the board hired Bozek, who Burke said left another diocese without his bishop's permission.
...
Since Burke began serving as archbishop in January 2004, he had increased pressure on the parish to conform to current church structure and hand over control of its assets.
...
The Vatican has backed Burke.

Eminent domain, Holy Trinity style. If you can't seize the parish honestly, then just excommunicate everyone in it. How convenient.

I can't decide which is a better name for this: "Eminent Damnation" or "His Eminence Domain."

Either way, it's nice to know that the Church bureaucracy in America has its priorities as straight as its priests. Get the building, get the land, get the money. And if you lose a few souls in the process, then write it off as collateral damage.

And worry about the boy-rape later. Or — if possible — never.

UPDATE: At least 1,500 people defied the Church bureaucracy, risking excommunication in the process, to attend mass with the dubiously excommunicated priest. Good for them.

As I expected and advocated, a federal judge has ruled that Pope Benedict XVI is legally a "head of state" and is therefore immune from service of process, and civil liability, over the Catholic Church's child molestation scandal.

That does not mean, however, that the Church itself is immune or that its assets can't be seized to pay judgments for the victims of pervert priests -- or the monsignors, bishops, archbishops and cardinals who conspired and covered for them.

Render unto the plaintiffs...

Or is that, "No Limbo, so R.I.P."?

The Pope will this week overturn a belief held by Roman Catholics since medieval times by abolishing the concept of Limbo.

Limbo is traditionally held to be the place where the souls of children go if they die before they can be baptised and so freed from original sin.
...
This week a 30-strong Vatican international commission of theologians which has been examining Limbo began its final deliberations. Vatican sources said that it had concluded that all children who die do so in the expectation of "the universal salvation of God" and the "mediation of Christ", whether baptised or not.

For these defects, and for no other evil,
we now are lost and punished just with this:
we have no hope and yet we live in longing.
--Inferno 04:042

I wonder just how much heartache the Roman Catholic Church has inflicted on parents throughout the centuries by telling them that their dead babies were not in Heaven -- a corollary of their dogmatic version of "God's Love."

Now about all the other vicious, spiteful and just plain stupid crap that the Vatican preaches...

(Via HBA.)

We have three contestants this year:

--America's Roman Catholic bishops, who — when not busy dealing with the Church's countless boy-rape scandals — are busy trying to convince gays that the Church doesn't actually hate them, but just loathes them:

The guidelines welcome gay people, but they also affirm church teachings that "homosexual inclinations" are inherently disordered. While having such inclinations is not sinful, gay sexual activity is, according to the core teachings.

In other words, call yourself Catholic, show up at church, drop some indulgence money in the collection plate, and nod sheepishly when we tell you that, despite your being hell-bound, we still embrace you — sorta kinda. Which all makes so much more sense than, say, just going to the United Church of Christ instead.

--The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, which takes, shall we say, a more consistent approach to the subject:

The vote changes the convention's long-standing laws, which previously only required its members to support the convention through cooperation and financial contributions. Now any churches that "knowingly act to affirm, approve, endorse, promote, support or bless homosexual behavior" will be barred from membership.

For perspective, this leapfrogs the North Carolina Baptists over the Southern Baptists, who don't grant themselves the authority to investigate allegations of — gasp! — gay-friendliness. Sixteen "moderate Baptist" [sic?] churches in North Carolina will almost certainly be expelled for their insufficiently holier-than-thou attitude toward gays.

--A late entry: The Presbyterians --

On Wednesday in Pittsburgh, the Rev. Janet Edwards will go on trial before a Presbyterian Church tribunal for officiating at a same-sex marriage ceremony. Earlier this year, the Redwoods Presbytery in Northern California acquitted a minister in a similar trial, ruling that ceremonies for same-sex couples are not "contrary to the essentials of the Reformed faith."

Of course, to the Catholics -- who demonstrate God's love for women by refusing to let them become priests -- the Presbyterians are probably all hell-bound anyway for ordaining a female reverend in the first place. The gay tolerance is, they will likely tell you, just the next logical progression down the slippery slope away toward modernity. None of this would have happened if the Church had not abandoned the Inquisition. Go figure.

---

I guess it's a good thing that God loves us — because these most un-Christian of Christians sure don't.

More thoughts from PHB.

---

Being a rather bad driver myself, my favorite Twit was always Oliver St. John-Mollusc. How about you?

Pope Benedict's idea of "good will toward men" —

The Pope said granting legal recognition to unwed couples was a threat to traditional marriage, which required a higher level of commitment.

But he saved his strongest words for those who suggest gay couples should be put on the same level as a husband and wife.

"This tacitly accredits those dismal theories that strip all relevance from the masculinity and femininity of the human being as though it were a purely biological issue," the Pope said.

Of course, to the Vatican, "the femininity of the human being" is also their centuries-old excuse for subjugating women — an idea that ought to be dead and buried, but like Christ always manages to resurrect. I suppose it's also their adherence to "masculinity" that somehow rationalizes their never-ending boy-rape scandals.

In other words: "masculinity and femininity" trump dignity and autonomy. Because God loves you.

Every single element of Roman Catholic dogma can be traced back to a single, monstrous premise: That happiness in heaven can only be achieved through misery on earth. The Vatican is the most sophisticated madhouse ever devised by man. It is in fact more than a madhouse; it is a factory for creating madmen. Century after sadistic century.

That is not a "dismal theory." It is a dismal fact.

More thoughts from Straight, Not Narrow.

A European man who has never fathered a child and who has never wanted for anything his entire life is blasting Europe for not having enough children and for "wanting everything for themselves."

Stated differently, the Roman Catholic Church has gone from being the single most evil institution in human history to the single most asinine.

---

Meanwhile.

Our blogging colleague over at Good As You has compiled a highlights — okay, lowlights — video of Pope Benedict XVI:


My previous posts on the Pope, especially regarding his previous incarnation, qua Cardinal, as the modern version of the Grand Inquisitor, appear in the chain below.

I've been accused, yet again, of having an inordinate fondness for Catholic-bashing.

I can't imagine why...



I wonder how many Catholics, when the plate reaches them each Sunday, drop in not a twenty-dollar bill but a note demanding that the Vatican abandon its primitive, cruel and thoroughly un-Christian policies regarding gays.

For an American lay Catholic to disagree with the Pope's bilious blather but do nothing about it is, um, to do nothing about it. And I, like nicklansley, will not apologize for having an inordinate fondness for pointing that out.

More thoughts today from a previous CuteTuber™, thorthewhore.

Sunday CuteTuber™ FAQ
---

(For those who don't get the reference.)