While the latest outbreak of scandals surrounding sexual abuse in the Catholic Church system is only the most recent of a long line of such atrocities, stemming back decades. Specificities of the many incidents aside, the Catholic Church has demonstrated an attitude and behaviors of significant consequence in their response. Alleged abuse is handled internally; even priests who turn themselves in, admitting guilt, go to their superiors, not the police. Why is this? It's because these people believe their preferred sacred book is of higher authority than the 'the laws of man.' In their eyes, they are responsible to a 'higher power' than the authority of our civilian law and government. Such thinking is detrimental and a threat to society. Possible consequences for this mindset are far-reaching, but we can already point to two macabre results: conspiratorial sexual abuse & terrorism. 

Faith in itself is not necessarily responsible for this arrogance, nor even is organized religion. While I have my qualms with both, it's important to recognize that neither requires this superior mindset. But we can point to individual systems and persons as guilty of malfeasance, and the Catholic Church and Pope are front and center. 

The Pope's claimed infallibility and rule by divine right is equivalent to a monarch's "above the law" status. It is anti-democratic (not that the Catholic Church makes an efforts to be democratic) and immoral, in particular by claiming such status on the basis of his own belief. At least an old monarch was placed above his/her own laws within his/her own domain. But for the Pope or any part of the Church to claim any authority whatsoever over the laws of sovereign nations is not only unfounded, but unenforceable to the extent of any individual or group making claim to whatever divine authority they have based on whatever fantastic system they choose to believe. 

It is not to a bishop or archdiocese to judge and punish priests. That is the duty of a civilian court. Every alleged case of abuse by a priest in the US should be investigated by DoJ and handled accordingly. These men are NOT outside of the law, regardless of whatever claims to be responsible only to some higher being.

This inevitably relates to the Pope's supposed "diplomatic/legal immunity" within certain states. Geoffrey Robertson outlines the absurdity of this idea in The Guardian:

"The anomalous claim of the Vatican to be a state – and of the pope to be a head of state and hence immune from legal action – cannot stand up to scrutiny. . .

. . . In 2005 a test case in Texas failed because the Vatican sought and obtained the intercession of President Bush, who agreed to claim sovereign (ie head of state) immunity on the pope's behalf. Bush lawyer John B Bellinger III certified that Pope Benedict the XVI was immune from suit 'as the head of a foreign state'."

And Hitchen's on the origin of the Pope's supposed immunity: 

"The UN at its inception refused membership to the Vatican but has allowed it a unique "observer status", permitting it to become signatory to treaties such as the Law of the Sea and (ironically) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to speak and vote at UN conferences where it promotes its controversial dogmas on abortion, contraception and homosexuality."

I strongly agree with both Hitchens & Dawkins in their supporting Robertson's and Mark Stephens's efforts to have the Pope arrested for "crimes against humanity" during his visit to Britain. Rather than point you to the UK's Sunday Times's misleading article, I suggest Richard Dawkins's clarification of the matter here. 


Here's a very good NPR story (~9 min) on the handling of a US case. 

Here is a BBC article on campaign to arrest Pope Benedict XVI. 

Post Script: I'm hopping on the bandwagon

I've decided that I'm no longer beholden to the U.S.'s Muggle laws, for I am a wizard according to my belief in the 7 Holy Texts. I am only responsible to the UK MoM's American counterpart: The U.S. Department of Magic.