United Nations functionaries have long demonstrated a penchant for pompous posturing, but the anti-papal outburst of Geoffrey Robertson may set some sort of record.According to press reports, Robertson, a judge for the International Criminal Court (ICC), has declared that he thinks Pope Benedict XVI should be put on trial, and that the ICC is the place where that trial should take place.
Thus Robertson ranted in a commentary for the Guardian:
Well may the pope defy "the petty gossip of dominant opinion."
But the Holy See can no longer ignore international law, which now counts the widespread or systematic sexual abuse of children as a crime against humanity.
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.
It becomes clear in the course of Robertson’s harangue that his move to put the pope on trial is largely about striping the Vatican of its status as a "state":
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. This has involved the UN in blatant discrimination on grounds of religion: other faiths are unofficially represented, if at all, by NGOs. But it has encouraged the Vatican to claim statehood — and immunity from liability....
Pope Benedict has recently been credited with reforming the system to require the reporting of priests to civil authorities, although initially he blamed the scandal on "gay culture." His admonition last week to the Irish church repeatedly emphasised that heaven still awaits the penitent paedophile priest. The Holy See may deserve respect for offering the prospect of redemption to sinners, but it must be clear that in law the pope does so as a spiritual adviser, and not as an immune sovereign.
It is a bit bemusing to watch a judge demonstrate his complete incapacity to maintain impartiality concerning a case that he apparently hopes would come before him, particularly when his scree was not confined to a private remark, or words hastily spoken, but instead comes in an article written for public consumption.
However, as an article posted by the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute observes,
Professor Hurst Hannum of the Fletcher School at Tufts University told the Friday Fax that it would be a “real stretch” to use the ICC since that court’s jurisdiction is mainly reserved for crimes during war. More likely, Hannum said, is that Robertson and likeminded experts would invoke the principle of “universal jurisdiction” so that national courts all over the world could detain the pope whenever he stepped foot on their soil. Critics say the principle, already used in practice, is a violation of sovereignty as it is enshrined in the UN Charter.
Certainly his remarks have found a very welcome reception among voluble atheists such as Richard Dawkins, who quickly linked to Robertson’s article.
And noted atheist scribbler Andrew Sullivan, most known for having more faces than Janus when it came to the Iraq War, seems to find more fixed resolve when it comes to getting the pope on trial than he did for bombing Iraq. As Sullivan explained at TheAtlantic.com:
Christopher Hitchens first proposed to me the idea of a legal challenge to the Pope's visit on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent "Put the Pope in the Dock" article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal.
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.
Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it.
The squealing of British atheists aside, there is, however, an element of truth in Robertson’s absurd call for putting the pope on trial; as Hannum observed, the court’s jurisdiction is usually reserved for times of war and it seems quite clear that a war against Christendom has been underway for quite some time.
Robertson’s grandstanding against the Roman Catholic Church is simply one more engagement in that war.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to the CW Team or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that the CW Team agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
CW Team
SIC: TNA