Don’t be daft — you can’t put the Pope on trial

Wednesday, 14th April 2010

Benedict XVI’s handling of sex abuse cases is not above criticism, says John L. Allen Jr. But the campaign for him to be hauled before an international court is ill informed

A Vatican spokesperson recently laughed off the campaign to issue an arrest warrant for Pope Benedict XVI when he visits the United Kingdom in September, describing it as an idea designed to make a splash in public opinion rather than something ‘serious’.

One understands that response. Whatever you think about Pope Benedict or Catholicism, it does seem a bit over-heated to suggest that international tribunals designed to prosecute mass-murderers and architects of genocide should go after someone who’s never even been accused of complicity in any instance of sexual abuse, but, at most, of failing to act swiftly enough to stop it.

Yet the ‘Put the Pope on trial’ drumbeat struck up last week by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and the human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson among others, nonetheless deserves a serious response, because it’s premised both on a misunderstanding of international law and a misreading of Benedict XVI’s record on the sexual abuse crisis facing the Catholic Church.

On the legal front, Robertson and others have suggested that the pope is not entitled to sovereign immunity as a head of state because the idea of statehood for the Vatican is a relic from the pre-modern era. Two basic mistakes are encoded in that assumption.

First, statehood belongs not to ‘the Vatican’ — a 108-acre physical location in Rome — but to the ‘Holy See’, the designation for the papacy as the central government of the Catholic Church. Second, the Holy See’s sovereign status is hardly in decline. Under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the number of nations with which the Holy See enjoys diplomatic relations reached all-time highs, now totalling 178. There are only a handful of countries which do not recognise the Holy See, including Saudi Arabia, Oman, North Korea, Vietnam and Burma — presumably not a list that human rights champions such as Robertson would be eager to see the UK join.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: John L. Allen Jr. | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Ricky

April 15th, 2010 2:49pm Report this comment

Of course, Dawkins and his set of secular fundamentalists wouldn't dare to take on any homophobic or judeophobic Muslim hate preachers.

Where were they when Quradawi was being welcomed by the former, not much lamented Mayor of London, Livingstone?

They are content only to attack relatively passive faiths like Judaism or Christianity.

Perhaps these zealots prefer the weak anger of the bishopry to the deadly consequences of a fatwa - like so many other members of the fatuous Liberal Elite commentariat.

David Bouvier

April 15th, 2010 3:35pm Report this comment

A rather pointless article since the author is confusing international tribunals with a Hamas-style 'lawfare' operation as used on Tzipi Livni.

I assume the goal is to arrest the Jo Ratzinger on a warrant granted under UK human rights laws with universal (or should that be catholic) jurisdiction.

, beloved of the human-rights-law left, and seek to prosecute the Pope under UK laws of universal (or should that be catholic) jurisdiction.

If the Pope comes with diplomatic credentials then there is no problem.

David Bouvier

April 15th, 2010 3:36pm Report this comment

Oops - please ignore 3rd paragraph...

John Patrick

April 19th, 2010 9:50pm Report this comment

At last, a sensible and balanced article from a journalist. I was beginning to despair that such journalists existed after reading the sensationalist and over-the-top reports from such as Rod Liddle or Libby Purves both writing in The Times. The problem is that newspapers such as The Times, the New York Times and the Irish Times have spewed forth a dust cloud of incriminations againt Benedict without any real proof of their accusations that it is difficult now to see the man in a true light.

Post comment