(Cross posted at Open Salon)
As huge scandals tend to do when they're ignored/covered up, the shameful history of abusive priests in the Roman Catholic Church has finally reached the Vatican itself. When they're not doubling-down on the crazy by comparing criticism of the Pope with anti-semitism and other outrageous statements, the Holy See has countered calls for the Pope's deposition or resignation by asserting Benedict's sovereign immunity as head of state of Vatican City.
Let me state at the outset that I am not a Roman Catholic, nor have I ever suffered abuse, so I don't have a personal stake in the debate beyond a belief that these victims should receive justice and closure, and whatever comfort those things might bring them. And a belief as well that any powerful organization--secular or religious--should not be allowed to cover up its abuses.
Bitter as it may be, the pope's defenders are correct in their assertion that he could not be deposed or prosecuted. In theory, Pope Benedict could abdicate but in the long history of the papacy only one clearly legitimately elected pope has done so: Celestine V in 1294. A few others, particularly those at the end of the Great Schism in 1415 (John XXIII and Gregory XII) did so voluntarily to resolve the problem of rival claimants to the papacy. It is not terribly likely that Benedict XVI would follow in their footsteps. Several times during the 70-odd years of the Great Schism, and especially after its resolution at the Council of Constance in 1415 there were attempts by the College of Cardinals to assert that general councils of the Roman Catholic Church were superior to popes; however, starting with Pope Martin V--elected at the Council of Constance after seeming to agree with its principles--every pope has rejected this assertion and the conciliar movement, as it was known, failed to gain much traction.
So if Pope Benedict is going to assert his privileges as a secular head of state, then it is time to address the abuse scandal diplomatically. If abdications and depositions are rare in the long history of the Holy See, concordats--treaties--with secular powers have been common. One of the most famous is the Concordat of Worms, ratified in 1123 and resolving a long power struggle between the Church and State (particularly in the Holy Roman Empire) over candidates for bishoprics. Other more recent ones include the Concordat of 1801 with Napoleon, giving him increased control of the Roman church in France; and the Lateran Treaty of February 1929, which formalized the formation of Vatican City as a state controlled by the pope in return for renunciation of claims over the Papal States (dissolved in 1870 with the unification of Italy) and recognition of Rome as the capital of Italy.
It is time for a new concordat, one that deals with the abuse scandal. Certainly, seeing that victims of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy receive justice is a worthy cause, and the sheer scope of the scandal in the United States alone justifies the involvement of the State Department even with all the energy being devoted to the Middle East and South Asia right now. And with the usual caveat that I'm not a lawyer (much less versed in international law), this concordat would have to include the following:
--An unambiguous statement that the Church and the papacy erred in its handling of the scandal;
--A directive that all dioceses and diocesan personnel in the United States must cooperate in abuse investigations. Failure to do so would open anyone involved in a coverup to criminal and civil penalties;
--All personnel accused of abuse will receive due process.
Now, I will grant you that in the United States the third point would be what any accused would already received. But my hope would be that if the U.S. took the lead with a treaty addressing this issue, it could be a model for other nations as well. And I think that Pope Benedict would have to accept such an accord. It is either that, or see this consume his entire papacy and that is something--I hope--that would be unacceptable to a modern pope.
(Sources: The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, by J.N.D. Kelly; Western Europe In the Middle Ages, 300-1475, by Brian Tierney and Sydney Painter)