Hi Pericles,
Here we go again.

>> I have often found your logic a little difficult <<
As you know, as mathematiian, logical thinking was probably the only thing I could do to earn my living with. So it must be my fault if I cannot express myself clearly enough for you to follow.

On the other hand, jurisprudence or legal practice is not my field, so I can speculate only to a limited extent, lest I look like those who pronounce judgements about evolution (or theology, etc) without properly understanding what it is about.

>> “and those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law". Do you agree with this corollary, or dispute it?<<

I do not know how (and in what legal system) the term “involved” (e.g. in murder) is to be defined, but, of course, I agree that those against whom there is a reasonable suspicion of having committed … (insert an item from the official list of crimes prosecutable in the particular country) “should be prosecuted to the full extent of law” in that country.

>>if … it is proven in court that the Pope was indeed guilty of aiding and abetting a crime … are you suggesting this would be beneficial to the Church?<<
Well, if it is proven that he e.g. murdered a person then this would certainly not be beneficial to the Church. Only the impression, should it arise, that he is being hounded or prosecuted not so much for what he has done but for what he stands for, could lead to the lifting of the public image of him, and his supporters, albeit not overnight. So I do not question your implication only your premise, with all the legal (and factual) ambiguities in it. (ctd)

(ctd)
>>I … get the allusion to martyrdom inherent in your reference to "Communist authorities"<<
It would never occur to me to use such language when referring to the suffering of victims - be it of sexual abuses by pedophile clergy, or of incarceration and torture by an oppressive political system. I think this is where we differ more than in our “logics”.

As to the legal (in distinction to moral) aspects of the case, I do not know how is “aiding and abetting” pedophilia (I presume this is the crime you have in mind) legally exactly defined in this or that country. Also, the pope is the Head of a State officially recognised by 177 countries, so - as I see it - at most the International Court of Justice in Hague would come into consideration.

Let me repeat that I am not an expert on any law, international included. I only suspect that should he be explicitly charged with the aim to prosecute, he would be defended - at least in the media - not only by “pious” Catholics defending their “Holy Father”, but also by atheist or Jewish attorneys defending the integrity of their profession (see e.g. Alan Dershowitz in http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/13/in-defense-of-the-pope/). Thanks God (if you don’t mind) this is still an open society.

Oliver,
Please read my response to Pericles as an indirect response to the views expressed in your post. There is only one exception:

>>he could (be) tried “in absentia” as was Martin Bormann at Nurnberg <<
I am not Jewish but I could understand their outrage at comparing, even indirectly, the reasons for which the Nürnberg trials were held with those the pope could even possibly be accused of.

George,

One does not need to be in the legal professional to appreciate Arch Priest Law should have faced a jury, when a Bishop. I think that Boston Globe and Catholic National Reporter presented strong arguments. Do you disagree with columnists?

There are at least two issues here.

1. There was enough evidence to investigate a crime and detain Bishop Law. Moreover, it seems odd, that Law who was being investigated for an indictable offence and the capacity to flee the Court’s jurisdiction was not ordered to surrender his passports.

2. The Church is using its status to avoid the accountability of its leaders to secular authorities. If it does so by claiming sovereign immunity and the status of State, it joins the likes of Pinochet.

Albeit, the Papal States were lost in the nineteenth century and the autonomous territory within Italy was declared by Mussolini, without international sanction. Although, there are “diplomatic” personnel exchanges, the UN does not recognise the Vatican. Although, the Vatican is allowed to observe UN debates on key moral issues. Yet, all this is digression. Even, if the Pope was a Head of State and the Vatican was recognised by the UN, Benedict and JPII were still wrong regarding covering-up crimes to protect the “universal church” .

What the Pope (in part) stands for is, promoting Law, rather than demoting him to a common priest; even if stay within the domain of the Church.

It would seem the Pope and Church act as if “above” answerability for their actions. Edward Gibbon seems to make a similar point, when contrasting the temporal high and mighty with meek and spiritual fishermen. Please go back and read the block Gibbon quote. What do you feel is Gibbon saying about the Church of 1776?

My comment regarding Bormann as a “Judgment at Nurnberg” parellel was on judgment made in absentia of a leader. Here, the locus was on the means of jurisprudence: Nothing to do with the Jews (or Poles).

A Pope or Bishop “in the dock” would deserve a defence lawyer, of course.

-cont-

George,

Is it rational to defend the “Holy Father” when said Father protects wayward clergy from secular justice? He does not even act in the more limited manner within orbit of his control over a subordinate, by demoting Law, for example.

I think part of the problem could be the Catholic Church sees itself as God’s agent, rather than a temporal functionary and conduit to understanding the God in question. If some people believe the Church’s self-referencing proclamations, we could have the same people believing, “my Church, right or wrong”. Perhaps, the Church needs to become more “grounded”, before it can in a more morally responsible manner.

The Alan Dershowitz article provided more reasons than excuses for the way the Catholic Church behaves, even in the 21st century. Being secretive, backward, authoritarian and self-serving are not justifications.

I have met three cardinals (one while still a priest). All were very civil and engaged in activities. None struck me as being particularly meek and humble. Along similar lines, I recall at my Confirmation, where the Bishop arrived in a chuffer drive limousine. It didn’t gel well with the “vow of poverty”. Nor do palaces, I put. It seems, there is spin and there is reality. Herein, the larger reality is the Pope and Bishopric see themselves as esteemed and elevated Excellencies. I doubt, the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount, had that product in mind.

Regards,

O.

It's very simple stuff, George. Really it is.

>>I do not know how (and in what legal system) the term “involved” (e.g. in murder) is to be defined, but, of course, I agree that those against whom there is a reasonable suspicion of having committed … (insert an item from the official list of crimes prosecutable in the particular country) “should be prosecuted to the full extent of law” in that country.<<

That's a "yes".

Why do you find it difficult to say?

>>Well, if it is proven that he e.g. murdered a person then this would certainly not be beneficial to the Church. Only the impression, should it arise, that he is being hounded or prosecuted not so much for what he has done but for what he stands for, could lead to the lifting of the public image of him, and his supporters, albeit not overnight. So I do not question your implication only your premise, with all the legal (and factual) ambiguities in it<<

Most would say "no, it would not be a good look".

The premise, by the way, was neither legally nor factually ambiguous...

"that the Pope was indeed guilty of aiding and abetting a crime"

>>As to the legal (in distinction to moral) aspects of the case, I do not know how is “aiding and abetting” pedophilia (I presume this is the crime you have in mind) legally exactly defined in this or that country.<<

Nor I. That is best left to the Attorney General.

Oh, I forgot...

George, your propensity for extraneous verbiage, impenetrable subordinate clauses and outright obfuscation indicates, more than anything else, an attempt to derail the conversation.

Do try clarity. Short, precise sentences. Simple ideas. Straightforward statements.

As a mathematician, you must know that it makes sense.

Dear Oliver,

>>My comment regarding Bormann as a “Judgment at Nurnberg” parellel … (had) … nothing to do with the Jews <<
I understand and agree; it was just too much of a temptation, since similar objections are often raised when some injustice (e.g. under Communism) is somehow mentioned in the same sentence as the suffering of Jews under Nazism, although no comparison was intended: there are no rational only emotional justification for such objections.

Remember, I originally wrote about the Canisius College case, that I thought I knew something about, you butt in with the Cardinal Law case, where obviously you were better informed. Only when you claimed that the pope should “probably” be jailed did I object, and offered my doubts about the feasibility and appropriateness of even officially charging him. You disagreed, fair enough.

Should I be wrong in assessing the situation, and it will actually come to a trial, I think the pope's attorney for defense would have no problems in getting the jury dismiss the case, unless there are found more convincing charges than what the sensational media have so far dug up.

Whichever way you look at it, I see no point in conducting a trial of the pope on this OLO. So we have to again agree to disagree as we did a couple of times before, remembering that a number of times we could also agree.

Pericles,

>>your propensity for extraneous verbiage, impenetrable subordinate clauses and outright obfuscation indicates … an attempt to derail the conversation.
Do try clarity. Short, precise sentences. Simple ideas. Straightforward statements.
As a mathematician, you must know that it makes sense.<<

Thanks for the advice, including how to be a better mathematician and write simple sentences (in response to loaded questions) that you can understand.

However, if you expect me to respond to such condescending exhortations and personal attacks with condescending exhortations and personal attacks, I am afraid I am too old and polite for that.

So please let us just remember our differences and leave it at that.