The Pope should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.

I would like the audience to note, that forfieting a round is a loss of conduct, not a debate loss. The Murphy Case, in every aspect, is relevant to the debate. You stated, "Murphy admitted to being a child molester; his guilt here is not in question. " Unless there are offical court documents that incriminate him of being a child molester or admitting to it, he is not a registered sex offender, and therefore innocent because he was never convicted. I garuntee you if I look on the Sex Offender Registery, I would not find him. Since this debate is entirely a legal debate, we must look at this in a legal manner, and, legally, he never committed an offense. This debate, based on legalism, can not operate off of hearsay. If he indeed 'admitted' to it, the police did not see it fit to charge him with a crime. Which is my main CONTENTION: He was never convicted, so he's innocent. In a flat-out legal sense, he never committed a crime. You stated this from your source, "In 1993, with complaints about Father Murphy landing on his desk, Archbishop Weakland hired a social worker specializing in treating sexual offenders to evaluate him. After four days of interviews, the social worker said that Father Murphy had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse. " The Church took action from 'complaints' and hired a social worker to investigate. An evaluation is not a mental assessment and it does not provide enough time to decide if one has a mental illness. I know, because I went through the process several times. The social worker can not legally disclose what a person said, and, even if it was true or false, it is still hearsay. Also, the social worker seems unsure of the numbers. "Probably molested 200 boys and felt no remorse. " This could also be biasm, if complaints were as numorous as you say, because this statement alone is unprofessional. If the social worker was hired by the Church, then you can not say the Church did not take action to ensure Father Murphy was not a child molester. You state I have not addressed the matter of criminal incompetance, which I have. My claim is he never comitted the crime, and there are NO LEGAL RECORDS to prove it! Also, I'd like to beg your pardon on the Hullerman case, because he was suspended and, as a direct quote from the Church, "forbidden from any work with children. " He broke this ban on his own accord, so please do not say that I am uninformed. a. . http://www.thaindian.com... On the matter of 'secrecy', I believe you mean in examples like "The archdiocese also declined to reveal the full name of the priest. "? It is not a matter of secrecy, but one of protection. His family could be publicly persecuted for his crime or worse. It isn't rational for any business to release every detail of everything about it's people. They told what the public needed to know and they acted upon it, but they are not obligated to give names for the protection of the person in question. "As I have shown, none of the claims I have made are based on hearsay. More importantly, even if there is only a claim against a priest that he is a child molester, then a few things need to happen. 1. ) The priest should be temporarily removed from his post and not allowed to work with children until the matter has been completely resolved" Yes, your claims are entirely based on hearsay. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS NEXT PART APPARENT! You state that even 1 claim of pedifalism should put them on suspension? In the first statement of this debate, you declare the Pope himself and the entire church a 'sydicate of child rapists'! That alone, by your definition, should suspended Catholism! It is my exact point that hearsay without legal evidence is what can detrimentalise everyone and is very harmful. Your first word, first statement of this debate was biased and not befitting conduct for a proper legal debate. You stated, "3. ) And if the priest is guilty, he should become a registered sex offender and serve whatever sentence is deemed appropriate. " But Father Murphy was never registered, for he was not guilty, for there was no conviction. Conclusion Based on the fact that no legal evidence has been provided, it can be safely said that Father Murphy was innocent until his dying day and the Church took action against both priests. Therefore, THE POPE SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO COURT! I myself have high critisisms for the Pope, but what he does is legal, but though my views are different from his I must still respect them. My opponent also did not refute the Church took action by legal trial in my previous posting. Based on the evidence presented in this round and the last, my opponent can not say the Church does not, did not take legal action. Therefore, the Pope should not be arrested. He also neglected to address my matter of his stance on moral highground and the cry for immediate justice. He also neglected to acknowledge my subpoint before C2 of repentance and that police never even attempted to arrest the priest. He COMPLETELY neglected C2! He also did not address what I stressed on point 2 and 3 of my last posting. For the reasons above, I believe I won the debate, and I heavily urge you to =VOTE CON=