Arrest the pope!

[Sean]

I believe he's the gardener...

[Miles]

Rico is a law enacted to deal with organized crime. It permits the heads of a crime syndicate to be prosecuted for the doings of those who carry out their orders.

[tyro]

If the concept of holding the pope liable for some crime that would put him in a court of law in any given country, say for example the USA, then there is precedence for seizing the assets he owns within the USA.

Is there not?

[Gob]

Rico is a law enacted to deal with organized crime. It permits the heads of a crime syndicate to be prosecuted for the doings of those who carry out their orders.

Interesting concept!

It would be good to see the pope held culpable for abuse that went on under his watch.

[Scooter]

But who actually owns the stuff?

In most Roman Catholic dioceses in the U.S., there is a corporation sole called something like "the (Arch)bishop of X", of which the incumbent bishop is the sole officer. The corporation has title to most or all church property in the diocese. (Entities like church-run schools, hospitals, etc. may or may not be separately incorporated.) So control over the property passes seamlessly to the successor to the office, when the time comes (and provisions can be made for administration of property in the event of a vacancy in the see. This form was widely adopted because it conformed to a Canon Law requirement that the bishop exercise full control over all of the internal affairs of his diocese.

The drawback that has become apparent in the last few years, is that individual parishes could be at risk of losing their property if needed to pay diocesan debts, and vice-versa. There was a bankruptcy court ruling some time back (can't remember the diocese offhand) that opened that door. Some dioceses have started incorporating each individual parish as a corporation sole (retaining the bishop as officer) as a means of shielding them from any judgements against the diocese.

I have known some priests who have lived quite high on the hog. But the trick to it was that they didn't actually own the homes, cars, etc. The Church -- Roman Catholic, Anglican, Ukrainian Orthodox, whatever -- owned all the stuff. That way, the priests could enjoy the benefits of affluence while not technically breaking their vows of poverty.

Even if it would have technically been allowable, it isn't just about the vow. Even without the vow, all priests are called to keep worldly possessions in their proper place (and to not use church funds to satisfy their own wants) so that they might be a more Christ-like example. From the Decree on Ministry and the Life of Priests:

In their friendly and brotherly dealings with one another and with other men, priests are able to learn and appreciate human values and esteem created goods as gifts of God. By living in the world, let priests know how not to be of the world, according to the word of our Lord and Master. By using the world as those who do not use it, let them achieve that freedom whereby they are free from every inordinate concern and become docile to the voice of God in their daily life. From this freedom and docility grows spiritual discretion in which is found the right relationship to the world and earthly goods. Such a right relationship is of great importance to priests, because the mission of the Church is fulfilled in the midst of the world and because created goods are altogether necessary for the personal development of man. Let them be grateful, therefore, for all that the heavenly Father has given them to lead a full life rightly, but let them see all that comes to them in the light of faith, so that they might correctly use goods in response to the will of God and reject those which are harmful to their mission.

For priests who have the Lord as their "portion and heritage," (Num 18:20) temporal goods should be used only toward ends which are licit according to the doctrine of Christ and the direction of the Church.

Ecclesiastical goods, properly so called, according to their nature and ecclesiastical law, should be administered by priests with the help of capable laymen as far as possible and should always be employed for those purposes in the pursuit of which it is licit for the Church to possess temporal goods-namely, for the carrying out of divine worship, for the procuring of honest sustenance for the clergy, and for the exercise of the works of the holy apostolate or works of charity, especially in behalf of the needy. Those goods which priests and bishops receive for the exercise of their ecclesiastical office should be used for adequate support and the fulfillment of their office and status, excepting those governed by particular laws. That which is in excess they should be willing to set aside for the good of the Church or for works of charity. Thus they are not to seek ecclesiastical office or the benefits of it for the increase of their own family wealth. Therefore, in no way placing their heart in treasures, they should avoid all greediness and carefully abstain from every appearance of business.

Priests, moreover, are invited to embrace voluntary poverty by which they are more manifestly conformed to Christ and become eager in the sacred ministry. For Christ, though he was rich, became poor on account of us, that by his need we might become rich. And by their example the apostles witnessed that a free gift of God is to be freely given, with the knowledge of how to sustain both abundance and need. A certain common use of goods, similar to the common possession of goods in the history of the primitive Church, furnishes an excellent means of pastoral charity. By living this form of life, priests can laudably reduce to practice that spirit of poverty commended by Christ.

Led by the Spirit of the Lord, who anointed the Savior and sent him to evangelize the poor, priests, therefore, and also bishops, should avoid everything which in any way could turn the poor away. Before the other followers of Christ, let priests set aside every appearance of vanity in their possessions. Let them arrange their homes so that they might not appear unapproachable to anyone, lest anyone, even the most humble, fear to visit them.

What you say doesn't surprise me at all(and you should take a trip to Italy if you really want to see priests corrupted by materialism) because spending as much time in Italy as we did over the years brought us in contact with a LOT of very materialistic priests who appeared to deny themselves nothing.

[Andrew D]

But who actually owns the stuff?

In most Roman Catholic dioceses in the U.S., there is a corporation sole called something like "the (Arch)bishop of X", of which the incumbent bishop is the sole officer. The corporation has title to most or all church property in the diocese. (Entities like church-run schools, hospitals, etc. may or may not be separately incorporated.) So control over the property passes seamlessly to the successor to the office, when the time comes (and provisions can be made for administration of property in the event of a vacancy in the see. This form was widely adopted because it conformed to a Canon Law requirement that the bishop exercise full control over all of the internal affairs of his diocese.

The drawback that has become apparent in the last few years, is that individual parishes could be at risk of losing their property if needed to pay diocesan debts, and vice-versa. There was a bankruptcy court ruling some time back (can't remember the diocese offhand) that opened that door. Some dioceses have started incorporating each individual parish as a corporation sole (retaining the bishop as officer) as a means of shielding them from any judgements against the diocese.

There is also in the U.S. a legal doctrine -- known variously as "alter ego," "piercing the corporate veil," "sham," and probably other terms -- which enables plaintiffs to blast through the walls of the corporate form and hold liable those who are ultimately responsible for the culpable conduct. That doctrine should be employed against the Roman Catholic Church. The Vatican is ultimately responsible for the Roman Catholic Church's conduct. And it ought to be held responsible. Everything that it possesses should be returned to the rightful owners.

[Big RR]

But the vatican is somewhat different than a multinational corporation; the US recognizes the Vatican as a foreign country (with which we have full diplomatic relations--why? I really have no idea.) and, consequently, the Pope as a head of state. Could we, e.g., hold the queen or PM of the UK responsible for actions of a Briitsh multinational?

[Andrew D]

But the vatican is somewhat different than a multinational corporation; the US recognizes the Vatican as a foreign country (with which we have full diplomatic relations--why? I really have no idea.) and, consequently, the Pope as a head of state.

That recognition is a mistake. It also is of no international legal effect. (Under international law, recognition by other nations is neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of a nation.)

We should revoke it. We should revoke it simultaneously with taking the Vatican. The Vatican has no real sovereignty, and we should decline to continue participating in the deception that it does.

[Crackpot]

The Vatican has no real sovereignty, and we should decline to continue participating in the deception that it does.

WHy do you say that?

[Andrew D]

Because the Vatican does not meet even the most basic standards of nationhood under both international law and the accumulated wisdom of millennia of human experience. The Vatican is not a country; it is a corporate headquarters.

[Crackpot]

Because the Vatican does not meet even the most basic standards of nationhood under both international law and the accumulated wisdom of millennia of human experience.

such as?

[Andrew D]

Such as (among other problems) a real population.

The population of the Vatican -- setting aside the offspring of adulterous unions which the Vatican refuses to recognize and the offspring of mercenaries who happen to be on Vatican territory -- is entirely transitory. The present pope was not born in the Vatican. As far as I know, not even one of the present cardinals was born in the Vatican (and if he was, the Vatican is surely keeping that fact a secret).

An essential attribute of a real nation is a real population -- not a transitory population but a real population. The Vatican has no real population. Therefore, it is not a real nation. And no amount of international "recognition" can change that intrinsic fact.

[Crackpot]

Unlike citizenship of other states, which is based either on jus sanguinis (birth from a citizen, even outside the state's territory) or on jus soli (birth within the territory of the state), citizenship of Vatican City is granted jus officii, namely on the grounds of appointment to work in a certain capacity in the service of the Holy See. It usually ceases upon cessation of the appointment. Citizenship is extended also to the spouse, parents and descendants of a citizen, provided they are living with the person who is a citizen.[36][37]
Anyone who on loss of Vatican citizenship possesses no other citizenship, as judged by Italian law, automatically becomes an Italian citizen.[14]
As of 31 December 2005, there were, apart from the Pope himself, 557 people with Vatican citizenship, while there were 246 residents in the state who did not have its citizenship.
Of the 557, 74% were clergy:
58 cardinals, resident in Rome, mostly outside the Vatican;
293 clergy, members of the Holy See's diplomatic missions, resident in other countries, and forming well over half the total of the citizens;
62 other clergy, working but not necessarily living in the Vatican.
The 101 members of the Papal Swiss Guard constituted 18% of the total, and there were only 43 other lay persons with Vatican citizenship.[38]
[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_city

[Big RR]

Such as (among other problems) a real population.

The population of the Vatican -- setting aside the offspring of adulterous unions which the Vatican refuses to recognize and the offspring of mercenaries who happen to be on Vatican territory -- is entirely transitory. The present pope was not born in the Vatican. As far as I know, not even one of the present cardinals was born in the Vatican (and if he was, the Vatican is surely keeping that fact a secret).

An essential attribute of a real nation is a real population -- not a transitory population but a real population. The Vatican has no real population. Therefore, it is not a real nation. And no amount of international "recognition" can change that intrinsic fact.

Andrew--but when we (I presume congress and the president) chose to enter into full diplomatic realtions with the vatican, isn't the law of the US now that the vatican is the nation with the pope as head of state? I presume that can be changed, but at least for the time being isn't the US position (binding on our courts0 that it is a nation?

So the pope could not be arrested or tried in the US courts,nor, I presume, the courts of any other nation which recognizes the Vatican as a nation, correct? And is there an international corporate law that would be applied?

[Andrew D]

Unlike citizenship of other states, which is based either on jus sanguinis (birth from a citizen, even outside the state's territory) or on jus soli (birth within the territory of the state), citizenship of Vatican City is granted jus officii, namely on the grounds of appointment to work in a certain capacity in the service of the Holy See. It usually ceases upon cessation of the appointment. Citizenship is extended also to the spouse, parents and descendants of a citizen, provided they are living with the person who is a citizen.[36][37]
Anyone who on loss of Vatican citizenship possesses no other citizenship, as judged by Italian law, automatically becomes an Italian citizen.[14]
As of 31 December 2005, there were, apart from the Pope himself, 557 people with Vatican citizenship, while there were 246 residents in the state who did not have its citizenship.
Of the 557, 74% were clergy:
58 cardinals, resident in Rome, mostly outside the Vatican;
293 clergy, members of the Holy See's diplomatic missions, resident in other countries, and forming well over half the total of the citizens;
62 other clergy, working but not necessarily living in the Vatican.
The 101 members of the Papal Swiss Guard constituted 18% of the total, and there were only 43 other lay persons with Vatican citizenship.[38]
[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_city

Exactly: Vatican "citizenship" is entirely fictional. As is the Vatican's "statehood". I didn't have the time or inclination to dig that up, but thanks for proving my point.

[Andrew D]

Andrew--but when we (I presume congress and the president) chose to enter into full diplomatic realtions with the vatican, isn't the law of the US now that the vatican is the nation with the pope as head of state? I presume that can be changed, but at least for the time being isn't the US position (binding on our courts0 that it is a nation?

The most important thing is to change it. Our "recognition" of the Vatican as a sovereign state is simply wrong. The Vatican is not and never has been a genuinely sovereign state, and all contrary pronouncements should be formally recognized as the horseshit that they have always been.

As to whether it is binding on the courts, that presents an interesting question. Is "recognition" of a foreign "state" by the legislative and executive branches binding? If the entity "recognized" as a foreign "state" is obviously not a state -- say, for example, that Congress and the President chose to "recognize" the Flat Earth Society as a sovereign "state" -- does its "recognition" require the U.S. courts to treat it as a sovereign nation?

The bottom line remains that the Vatican is in possession of things that belong to the rest of us. Those things should be taken back by and for the rest of us.

[Big RR]

I'm fully in favor of changing it. There's absolutely no reason we should have recognized as a sovereign nation.

As for the binding effect, I think the power to enter into treaties is reserved to congress and the executive, and recognition is clearly a treaty. My guess is that the courts would be bound by it (or at least ruel it is outside their power to challenege it).

In the meantime, I think there are provisions in US law to sue foreign states, and that some may well apply here. i just don't think our criminal laws would apply against a head of state, however silly that designation is.

[Crackpot]

Such as (among other problems) a real population.

The population of the Vatican -- setting aside the offspring of adulterous unions which the Vatican refuses to recognize and the offspring of mercenaries who happen to be on Vatican territory -- is entirely transitory.

Many vatican positions are lifetime appointments

The present pope was not born in the Vatican. As far as I know, not even one of the present cardinals was born in the Vatican (and if he was, the Vatican is surely keeping that fact a secret).

So natualized citizens are not real citizeans?

An essential attribute of a real nation is a real population -- not a transitory population but a real population. The Vatican has no real population. Therefore, it is not a real nation. And no amount of international "recognition" can change that intrinsic fact.

While some is transitory some is "real"

Exactly: Vatican "citizenship" is entirely fictional. As is the Vatican's "statehood". I didn't have the time or inclination to dig that up, but thanks for proving my point.

Err that's not what the article says.

I'm sorry to say but your and Big RR's compaints about the problems with vatican recognition seem to be entirely base upon disagreement and disapproval with/of the thew catholic Church. However that is not even a constant standard with all countries.

Unless you can come up with something better than citizenship it looks to be nothing more than sour grapes.

[Crackpot]

fyi


Dark green Diplomatic relations
Light green Other relations
Gray No relations

[Big RR]

Crackpot--I have com-laints with the catholic church, but this has no bearing on whether the vatican should be seen as a country; IMHO it has no more busienss being recognized as a country than Mecca or Medina or even jerusalem does. The Vatican is the overarching office of the RC church, not a country of any sort. IMHO, I don't think the leadership of a religion should be recognized by anyone as a country; certainly some countries may have religious leaders or be governed by religious as well a secular principles, but corporations are not countries, whether they're the RC church or GE.

And this has nothing to do with my complaints with the RC church. I would hold the leadership to the same standards that i would hold the officers of any multinational coroporation.