[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Religion See other Religion Articles Title: More on Pope Joey and the Vatican’s rap sheet More on Pope Joey and the Vatican’s rap sheet To all of you who thought my article, Pope Joey’s rap sheet, was not fair or, believe it or not complete enough, I went back to the research-and-email well and hauled up these pearls. Let’s start with a picture of Ratzinger as Hitler Youth for all you doubting Thomases. This is the winter uniform. The spring/summer uniform which I originally described, shirt, tie, long shorts, high socks, bandolier, and swastika armband, that picture has been washed from the Internet. “Sorry, this page is no longer available.” So, the long arm of the censor has been at work. But, I think you get the picture. So let’s fast forward to 2007. US Says Pope Immune From Molestation Law This is the headline from what may be one of the singular pieces of worthy Fox News reporting: “ROME, The U.S. Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian should be dismissed because the pontiff enjoys immunity as head of state of the Holy See. . . ." The story added that Assistant U.S. Attorney General Peter Keisler said that permitting the lawsuit to forward would be “incompatible with US foreign policy interests.” But what about justice? Well, Judge Lee Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the southern district of Texas in Houston did not rule. Because US courts have been held up by "suggestion of immunity" motions submitted by the government. A 1994 lawsuit against Pope John Paul II, also filed in Texas, was thrown out after the US government filed a similar motion to bail out John Paul, Joey and the Boyz. The Vatican Embassy in Washington had asked “the US government to issue the immunity suggestion and do everything it could to get the case dismissed.” No pressure there. The article also says, “The former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit by three plaintiffs who allege that Juan Carlos Patino-Arango, a Colombian-born seminarian on assignment at St. Francis de Sales church in Houston, molested them during counseling sessions in the church in the mid-1990s.” Patino-Arango was indicted in a criminal case by a grand jury in Harris County, Texas, and became a fugitive from justice. The lawsuit alleged that 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 help him escape prosecution.” Imagine that. The lawsuit cited a May 18, 2001, letter from Ratzinger (written in Latin for complete transparency) to bishops round the world. It explained that "grave crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors would be handled by his congregation and that the proceedings of special church tribunals handling the cases were subject to ‘pontifical secret.’" In other words, it’s a cover-up, as described by Daniel Shea, attorney for one of the plaintiffs. Both the Vatican and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops protested that the secret church procedures in the sex abuse case were not to cover up abuse or prevent victims from “reporting crimes to law enforcement authorities.” They claim, “The document deals with church law -- not keeping secrets from secular authorities.” Meanwhile the pope's lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, said it was "appropriate" the Justice Department had determined the pope was "the sitting head of state of the Holy See." In a telephone interview, Lena said the motion would now be considered by the Texas court, "which should be bound by the executive's determination" and rule accordingly. Bottom line, “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 because Ratzinger was actually served with the documents.” You can read the rest of the sordid details if you click on the headline. Bush granted Holy See diplomatic immunity Immunity and other privileges to members of the Holy See’s Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations come from an executive order on March 7, 2007. The order “ensures safe passage for diplomats outside their home country. They are not subject to lawsuits or prosecution under the laws of the host country.” So, have a ball, guys. Actually, the Holy See does not belong to the UN, but has a semi-diplomatic “permanent observer” status since 1964. So it can join in General Assembly debates, “have its communications issued and circulated as official documents of the assembly, and co-sponsor draft resolutions that refer to the Holy See.” Not a bad deal at all. In fact the article tells us, “Last December, in its Department of State Authorities Act of 2006, Congress authorized the president to give the observer mission and its members ‘the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the diplomatic missions of member states to the United Nations, and their members." And then President Bush simply signed the act into law Jan. 11, and his March 7 executive order simply carried out what the law authorized. Simple. A UN official commented, “The Vatican has an interest, and we were glad to be able to accommodate as host country for the UN.” All the little peas in a pod. One reason might be a case that came up two years earlier against the Vatican itself . . . US appeals court reinstates Vatican Holocaust suit This case, brought up in federal appeals count in San Francisco in April, 2005, reinstated a lawsuit brought by Holocaust survivors, suing the Vatican Bank on charges of laundering assets from victims of Croatia’s pro-Nazi World War II regime. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to reverse a lower court ruling dismissing the case “on ground that foreign policy rather than lawsuits should address such historical claims.” Nevertheless, the federal court ruled that “ . . . some of the claims were justifiable . . . Although the parties have multiple procedural and substantive challenges to overcome down the road, they are entitled to their day -- or years -- in court on the justifiable claims.” This suit accused the Vatican Bank of getting literally hundreds of millions of dollars of gold and other various assets, all looted from the victims of Croatia’s “brutal Ustasha regime from 1941-1945.” Conceivably, some 700,000 people, mostly Serbs, were killed at death camps run by the Nazi-allied government. The plaintiffs also alleged these stolen funds also may have been passed on to groups smuggling Nazis out of Europe after the war, including Adolf Eichmann. Though the Vatican denied the allegations, the claims moved forward for 24 plaintiffs, survivors who had been waiting more than 50 years for restitution. And so on. In 1998, a multi-million dollar verdict against the Roman Catholic Diocese was delivered for sexual abuse of children, handled by the nationally known plaintiffs’ attorney, Windle Turley. If we dig beyond this and Ratzinger, we find ever stranger material about the Vatican Bank. Em beh (as my grandfather Raphael used to say with his hands akimbo). What can I say? They’re a rough-ass group, the Vatican & Partners. And Joey, he’s sitting on top of the religious pile. Abundanza, Giuseppe. Have a nice day. Smile nice to the people. Wave. Make-a the mass in-a Yankee Stadium. God bless. Peace on earth to men of good will. And everybody else, well, duck! Jerry Mazza is a free-lance writer living in New York. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.
Poster Comment: apologies to everyone this editorial offends
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin (#0)
Is there no end to your astonishing posts? Have you fact checked this crap with any place/person that is a credible journalist or religion writer? It has always been known that the 14 year old Ratzinger was a conscripted child during WWII, it's not some deeply held Church secret. As, Paul Harvey says, (check a little further) and get "the rest of the story".
I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party
I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party
Donate Thought you might be interested in donating. Be a shame to see this proud bastion of the fourth estate go belly-up for the lack of $1545!
I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||