The Pope should be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.

Let me begin by stating that I am deeply grateful for my opponent's response. I was beginning to fear that this debate would be swept into oblivion as no one took a stand to defend the Pope. The gravity of the claims we are dealing with really cannot be overstated. If everything I am claiming is true (and all the evidence indicates that it is), then it is very hard, indeed, to imagine how the Pope would not be criminally responsible for many instances of abuse within the Catholic Church. Having said that, let's see if we can't agree on a few things before the debate comes to an end. C1: Joseph Ratzinger failed to defrock a priest that was a serial child molester. Honestly, I can't really see how much of what my opponent has written about the Murphy case is relevant to the debate. Murphy admitted to being a child molester; his guilt here is not in question. Laurie Goldstein has proven this by showing that "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." [1] Simply put, Ratzinger failed to act so that this priest could even be temporarily removed from the priesthood. Even if Ratzinger couldn't find the time to respond before Murphy died, then that is criminal incompetence, since he was the head of the very department that oversaw these matters. That is the real issue here, which my antagonist has not addressed. C2: Joseph Ratzinger allowed the reassignment of a pedophile priest. I am slightly saddened to realize that my opponent is simply uninformed about the details of the case involving Peter Hullerman. In his last round, he goes on to say that "There was no wrong [in the Hullerman case] for there was no crime... just criti[c]ism and heated suggestions." This claim is based on a serious amount of misinformation. Hullerman was known by the church to be a child molester; this is partly why he agreed to go to therapy. After this therapy occurred, he was returned to the priesthood and later convicted of molesting more children. [2] These are not opinions that I hold; these are matters of fact corroborated by actual evidence and credible journalists. Moreover, we know for a fact that then Archbishop Ratzinger approved the transfer of this priest. None of what my opponent has written refutes any of this. C3: Joseph Ratzinger sought to keep the church's sex abuse crimes secret. My opponent's argument in this section stems, once again, from the baseless assertions he has made that there is no evidence that sex abuse crimes ever took place. 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. 2.) If there is evidence that indicates the claim is true, then the legal authorities must be notified and a criminal court should take up the case to determine if the priest is actually guilty. 3.) And if the priest is guilty, he should become a registered sex offender and serve whatever sentence is deemed appropriate. Joseph Ratzinger not only told Catholic Bishops to avoid legal authorities, but he also failed to remove dangerous priests from the priesthood. Furthermore, this dereliction of duty is made even more outrageous when one considers the full extent to which abuse took place. Consider, for a moment, the detailed description of some of these events as told by a few of the victims in the CICA report. "7.129 In relation to one School, four witnesses gave detailed accounts of sexual abuse, including rape in all instances, by two or more Brothers and on one occasion along with an older resident. A witness from the second School, from which there were several reports, described being raped by three Brothers: 'I was brought to the infirmary...they held me over the bed, they were animals....They penetrated me, I was bleeding'. Another witness reported he was abused twice weekly on particular days by two Brothers in the toilets off the dormitory: One Brother kept watch while the other abused me ...(sexually)... then they changed over. Every time it ended with a severe beating. When I told the priest in Confession, he called me a liar. I never spoke about it again. I would have to go into his ...(Br X's)... room every time he wanted. You'd get a hiding if you didn't, and he'd make me do it ...(masturbate)... to him. One night I didn't ...(masturbate him)... and there was another Brother there who held me down and they hit me with a hurley and they burst my fingers ...displayed scar.... ... 7.232 Witnesses reported being particularly fearful at night as they listened to residents screaming in cloakrooms, dormitories or in a staff member's bedroom while they were being abused. Witnesses were conscious that co-residents whom they described as orphans had a particularly difficult time: The orphan children, they had it bad. I knew ...(who they were)... by the size of them, I'd ask them and they'd say they come from ...named institution.... They were there from an early age. You'd hear the screams from the room where Br ...X... would be abusing them. There was one night, I wasn't long there and I seen one of the Brothers on the bed with one of the young boys ... and I heard the young lad screaming crying and Br ...X... said to me "if you don't mind your own business you'll get the same". ... I heard kids screaming and you know they are getting abused and that's a nightmare in anybody's mind. You are going to try and break out. ... So there was no way I was going to let that happen to me.... I remember one boy and he was bleeding from the back passage and I made up my mind, there was no way it ...(anal rape)... was going to happen to me. ... That used to play on my mind." [3] The John Jay report identified several contributing factors in the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandals. As indicated by the report, these factors include: 1.) Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem 2.) Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal 3.) Use of unqualified treatment centers 4.) Misguided willingness to forgive 5.) Insufficient accountability. [4] As I have demonstrated, Ratzinger has consistently aggravated all five of these factors numerous times, and has therefore played an integral role in the abuse of children. ::Conclusion:: None of what my opponent has said can honestly be used as a defense of the Pope. He has merely offered several pieces of information that are either inaccurate or irrelevant. On the other hand, I have consistently used evidence, solid evidence, to back up all of my claims. This Pope cannot hide behind plausible deniability as a defense of his actions. We have his signature on some of the letters and documents in question. [5-6] In any case, these actions undeniably merit a trial. If the Pope is found guilty after such a trial, then he should serve the appropriate sentence. If he is tried and miraculously found innocent through some legal loophole, then Catholics all over the world can be very proud of their dear leader. In either case, Pope Benedict XVI will be remembered for little else after he ceases to be the Vicar of Christ. Sources: http://www.debate.org...