The Pope should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.

Thank you for the debate. I shall now disprove my opponents points, since he has the burdon of proof, and if I can successfully disprove them, then I should win this debate (correct me if I'm wrong, Pro.) =REBUTTALS= C1: My opponents contetion claims that Joseph ratzinger "failed to defrock a priest that was a serial child molester." However, he was not a serial child molester. Under the law of the United States Supreme Law, a citizen is innoccent until proven guilty in a court of law with a verdict by their peers. The "sex offender" in question was never convicted of these crimes. However, due to the public attention and pressure, the Church was forced to take action, even though there was no evidence other than testimony (which in itself is not enough to convict, so he was not). According to my opponents article (http://www.nytimes.com...), the Church DID have a formal trial for Father Murphy. However, due to health reasons, his arrival to these were impossible. When this trail was called off, tension eased and interests moved away for a while. He was moved to another community to not draw attention 24 YEARS ago! He died shortly before the 2000's. My opponent (even though this is a legal case) takes the stance of moral highground. However, this issue was not brought up until recently. If the time for "justice" is immediate, as he claims, then he as well as the rest of the world, with all due respect, should on the day of finding the "injustice" rise against it. However, I assert there was no injustice, just public pressure. My opponent states that "In fact, Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger on January 12, 1998 in a plea to avoid prosecution.", but it was never proven that he wrote back. Even so, within the year, Murphy died, stating he wanted to live out the rest of his short life in diginity of priesthood. For all we know, he could have died before they could write a letter. For this contention, I assert that he was not a sex offender and/or child molester. The article in his "evidence" states that there was no attempt at arrest by authorites, and that the Church held it to matters more of sin and repentance. Of course they would! They are a religious group and in America, which is the case of the supposed crime, we have antidisestablishmentarianism, which means the Church can not interefear on a state level. The Church did not recieve a request to cooperate with authorities because there was no evidence, therefore he was not convicted, and in America you are innocent until proven guilty. C2: My opponent says "He stayed in priesthood despite warnings..." There were no warnings, because warning implies consequence for an impedning wrong. There was no wrong for there was no crime, therefore there couldn't have been warnings, just critisism and heated suggestions. For example, the Micheal Jackson case, he was believed to be a pedifile and charged. He was innocent though until proven guilty, which he was not. We should make the same principal to this case. "...was discovered a child molester..." No, he never was. "The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish." Where is the direct source for this? By my knowledge, he was never formally convicted of a sex crime. You state that it is criminal negligence, but you have yet directed me to a specific article where he was convicted of that crime. C3: There was no sex crime to be had, so there was no secrecy. It is not a matter that they hid the "crimes", but they did not endorse and promote slander without any evidence against them. If there was a crime, it would have been brought to the authorities, but hearsay, to ALL judges, is not viable in court, nor the real world. If someone told my employer that I stole from work just because they didn't like me, there would be an uproar at work and more may incite this of me. Micheal Jackson's case was similar, for more people claimed he molested their children, but was never brought to court. Why? They couldn't prove it. "And all of this was going on as many Catholic priests under his jurisdiction were diligently torturing and raping children across the globe." This is an exaggeration. Even if it was true, which I am not saying it is, you can't control everyone, but they can report them IF THEY ARE PROVEN GUILTY. It is not the Church's job to operate off of hearsay, nor is it the authorities. In Father Murphey's case, the police did not see enough evidence to pursue a court trial. You should be harassing them and not these religious officals. Yes, there probably was a matter secrecy, but you wouldn't want negative attention to your cause if you were alleged of false, unproven accusations, would you? This is not a crime, for no crime was proven. If I went to my work and bad-mouthed it, I would be fired as well. It's not a matter secrets, but a matter of slander. I can't even speak about the military if the news media came to me. It's not a primary issue of secrecy, but slander issue. =Conclusion= I believe that I have succesfully rebutted all of my opponents points. If I missed something, please bring it to my attention. Before I end my turn, I would like to stress these last few things: 1. Nothing had been proven in Father Murphey's "case". 2. Police authorities did not seek the Church's compliance because they, in their expert law knowledge, did not find it adequate to entertain such ludicris allegations that did not have proof. Therefore, the Church did not fail to comply or report. 3. It is not secrecy or blackmail to request your constituants of business not to slander your buisness with allegations that were not proven.