This is an interesting story and I'll bet it has Bush in a tight spot - Pope Seeks Immunity in Texas Molestation Case:


The article claims he already has diplomatic immunity as a head of state, but apparently that isn't enough or the vatican lawyers wouldn't be making the request:


Questions for debate:
1. Should Bush grant the Pope immunity from prosecution or should he have to face charges and deal with the lawsuit through due process?

2. What are the political ramifications if Bush takes either position?

1. Should Bush grant the Pope immunity from prosecution or should he have to face charges and deal with the lawsuit through due process?

I suspect that as a head of state, the Pope already has diplomatic immunity, and U.S. officials (in the executive office and at the State Department) will simply sidestep this issue by noting same. I'm not sure why the lawyers at the Vatican sent the May 2005 memo requesting that they declare Benedict XVI immune; perhaps they just want it explicitly recognized by high ranking diplomatic entities of the U.S. Goverment rather than assuming that the District Court for the Southern Division of Texas in Houston will quickly do the same.

2. What are the political ramifications if Bush takes either position?

I don't think the President will let himself get involved, or let himself be framed as having made the decision in matter, since he really doesn't have to.

1. Should Bush grant the Pope immunity from prosecution or should he have to face charges and deal with the lawsuit through due process?

I know the President has the power to pardon. But does the President have the power to grant immunity? It's an interesting distinction.

At first I was going to say that of course the Pope has immunity as a head of state. However, wasn't Saddam a head of state when the crimes his is to be tried for were committed?

I would be interested to hear what the Justice department has to say about this "automatic" immunity for heads of state.

2. What are the political ramifications if Bush takes either position?

Well, Bush is not able to be re-elected. So, whatever he does, though it will likely result in political fallout regardless, will have little effect politically, at least in terms of the 2006 ballot boxes IMHO.

However, I would think the best course of action to take politically would be to not grant immunity (assuming he can in the first place). He could simply state that it is not necessary based on the State department's statement that the Pope is already immune.

Politically, President Bush would gain further support from some on the religious right, and perhaps a few on the religious left. However, it is also likely that many in the RR camp would find fault with the President protecting the Pope. I have met a fair amount of "evangelicals" who seem to think the Catholic church is not just wrong, but of the devil. A good example of this thinking can be found here. (for the record, no I do not feel all "evangelicals" feel this way). Beyond that, many in America will look at this is an inappropriate connection between church and state, while others would simply see it as an abuse of power.

If he does not grant the immunity, what will he loose? It is unlikely that the religious right will go anywhere else. Also, there may be a few that will look more kindly on President Bush (and the GOP by default) if they see him as defiant to his holiness. Catholics, tend towards the left side of politics, at least in my experience. So, those of the Catholic church who might be offended by Presidential inaction would, more often then not, be unlikely to be Republican supporters anyway.

I know that all sounds kinda harsh, but IMHO it is reality.

1. Should Bush grant the Pope immunity from prosecution or should he have to face charges and deal with the lawsuit through due process?

Yes and no. Joseph Ratzinger wasn't a head of state when he apparently conspired to cover up the case in Texas. Now that he is head of state, should be be granted immunity?

I agree with <b>Azure-Citizen</b>. Bush dosen't need to get involved in this case. And i am sure he will stay as far away as possible from this case. Getting catholics angry because one of their mose sacred leaders are being prosecuted, isn't quite the best thing.

1. Should Bush grant the Pope immunity from prosecution or should he have to face charges and deal with the lawsuit through due process?
I think the Vatican is wanting a "do not disturb" sign placed on the Pope's door as it relates to this trial. That is why they are asking for immunity instead of resting on existing policy. If requested, Bush should answer quoting existing policy. Special immunity should not be granted here. Frankly, I wish the law didn't exist in this case, in spite knowing it serves our interests abroad better. If Ratzinger was part of this cover-up, justice should be served, regardless of his present status as a head of state.

2. What are the political ramifications if Bush takes either position?
A hornet's nest would be stirred if he boldly refused to grant immunity and somehow implied that his current head of state status is irrelevent vs. crimes committed prior to ascention. But everyone knows he won't do that.

If he were to grant special immunity (if that's even legal), it would cause a minor uproar, but would likely die down until the the trial got hot.


Saddam is being tried by the Iraqi people, OLS, not the United States. Though ironically his current status is not head of state, near as I can tell

Doc

Good point Doclotus Perhaps a better example for this would be Noreaga. The United States invaded Panama, sieged and eventually took custody of the Noreaga, the leader of the state of Panama at the time, and took him back the the United States. He was then transported to Miami, Florida. where he stood trial, was convicted on a host of charges (many where drug charges), and was sentenced to a U.S. prison.

Of course Panama denounced him, swore in a new leader during the invasion, later filing charges against Noreaga themselves (though if we had not invaded they would likely not have taken this action). However, at one point, we invaded a country for the purpose of taking custody of a sitting head of state to put him on trial in the United States.

1.) Well being the head of state and the spiritual leader of over a billion people certainly puts a damper on anyone trying to bring charges against him.

I think that America cannot charge a non-American citizen for conspiracy, if it could be called that. I am sure that there are millions of Catholics and non-Catholics alike who would consider it a personal blow if the United States could suddenly have the power to charge non-citizens... then again, it might just help cut down on the flow of illegal immigration.

2.) I think that if he doesn't he is sunk, and if he does: he'll have the face the wrath of lawyers from the American families of the supposedly molested boys.

Questions for debate:
1. Should Bush grant the Pope immunity from prosecution or should he have to face charges and deal with the lawsuit through due process?

No way. If Bush does this I will never vote for a Republican again. The Pope was an instrumental part of the investigation process during the time of the scandal. He should not be “immune” now just because he is pope. President Clinton was able to be sued while he was in the White House. I might have the name wrong, but isn’t Cardinal Law sitting pretty in the Vatican after fleeing the country. Now he has a high position in the Vatican and they won’t do anything to him. The man should be brought to justice. I do not care if he’s the King of Neptune.

2. What are the political ramifications if Bush takes either position?



overlandsailor, this was true 20-30 years ago but there is a lot of good-will between evangelicals and the catholic church in the US today. Catholics are increasingly voting for Republicans. Evangelicals are increasingly tolerant of Catholics (look at all the Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court).

I don’t think Bush faces any fall out if he gives immunity that’s what scares me. I do not think the Religious Right in this country cares if the Pope is immune.

Hi there everyone... Im new to these forums and i just wanted to share my opinion on this story...

Should Pope Benedict, former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger be immune from any kind of suit?? I strongly believe not...

I dont know if alot of you have seen the document called "crimen solitaciones" which was written by Joseph Ratzinger... In this document it states that any kind of sexual abuse caused by a priest to a human being or "beast" as it says, is subject to the "pontifical secret" and should not and cannot be divulged, if it is, that person would be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.... Im sorry but to me thats just wrong...

Someone here should get a copy of that "crimen solitaciones" and post it here so people really see how deep the scandal of sexual abuses against children really goes... Its amazing....

Back on topic, should he be immune... I say no... He was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when the suit was filed here in Houston in the District Court with the Honorable Judge Wood, and prior to that, the Cardinal was not mentioned, only the then Bishop Joseph Fiorenza and Juan Carlos Patino Arrango...

Later when Crimen Solitaciones came up, Cardinal Ratzinger being the author and Cardinal in the Vatican, the case got moved from District Court to Federal Court with Judge Lee Rosenthal...

This is what i think is going to happen...

Karl Rove will tell President Bush to not get involved... He will not talk about it with anybody... Mr. Rove was asked about it by a Los Angeles Times reporter a couple days ago and he told the reporter he would "get back with him"

President Bush's silence will be kinda like a "pocket Veto" of sorts... Or i dont know how to spell it but an aquiesence(sp)... Saying my silence means, im not specifically granting him immunity...

Thus, the lawyers for the case representing the John Does in the case will go to the State Department for a hearing under a common law, saying look, the president is in turn not granting the pope his immunity, thus the court should go on with the case and be able to depose Pope Benedict DIRECTLY... You think the church will allow that?? No way, not in a million years... Right now the case is on hold pending the State Departments decision... But Judge Rsenthal has put a 30 day reporting schedule for the Pope lawyers, meaning every 30 days the lawyers have to report the situation... And Judge Rosenthal is not going to wait for years...

IF, the president gives the pope immunity, president bush can be named a defendant in the suit... How... Well, the lawyers can then ask if the United States Constitution sees the Vatican as a Sovereign State... Which it doesnt...

Sorry if this is all in a huge mess, but this is what i see... Opinions??

One last thing... Judge Rosenthal is of Jewish background...

I am not sure I follow you here. The US government recognizes the Vatican as a Sovereign State. What in the Constitution prohibits the government from doing that?

A 1976 law known as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act makes it possible to sue sovereign entities in American courts under certain conditions, especially when that entity engages in commercial activity in the United States. The act has been used to sue foreign governments for mistreatment of citizens if some aspect of that mistreatment took place in the United States...

The church is a commercial enterprise... Hate to put it to you all like that... It makes money to pay for the Pope's retreats, vestments, ceremonies, the upkeep of the Vatican... All of that requires dinero... Mucho...

Anyways, the act of child abuses happened in Houston, and that falls under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act... At least i think so...

Here is a good website for people wanting to see how deep the coverup of the Roman Catholic Church goes...

Crimen Solitaciones

Someone should also post a video of when then Cardinal Ratzinger who again was head of the Holy office of the Inquisitions, slapped the reporter who asked him about the sexual abuse scandal.... It was quite funny... You could tell he was VERY UPSET!!!

You didn't answer my question.
You said:

Unless I am mistaken the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is not part of the Constitution. Even so, it does not address my question.

Wasnt the Vatican given the title "Sovereign State" by a former Benito Mussolini, in exchange for the Vaticans approval of Mussolinis role in the WW2??

If that is the case, can the Vatican really be seen as a "sovereign state" by the United States?

I guess the Constitution has nothing to do with this, i was really into the post and was not paying attention... Sorry...

If the Vatican really is a "sovereign state" why then is it asking George Bush to say personally it is??

The Holy See is recognized throughout the world as a Sovereign State (although I am not sure many people know). The Pope is viewed as Head of State. The problem for Mr. Ratzinger is that he was not Head of State when the alleged cover-up took place. Now that he is Pope I do not see why he should be immune from previous actions.

Thats a good point... So just because he "became" Pope, doesnt mean now he can count on his new title to save him per se...

But, if he had nothing to hide, why is he trying to make such a big deal about it?? Kinda interesting huh??

He proposes to rid the church of that kind of behavior but when threatened to get deposed to get more answers, he seeks immunity...

I wanted to revive this topic and see what more people think...

If the Pope automatically has immunity from legal suits in the United States(according to the State Department), then why is he asking the President for immunity directly?

I think maybe he's fishing for something other than personal immunity form prosecution, since he largely already has that under diplomatic rules.

Rather, I think he's fishing for some kind of endorsement/reassurance from the US government that can be read, or spun, as meaning "the US government is content that the Catholic Church, under Pope Benedict the Umpteenth, has turned a corner from the abuse scandals that have scarred it's reputation in America and elsewhere, and is taking the appropriate steps to ensure such abuses do not happen again. We're not going to interfere in the progress of these essentially private matters, since as a secular state of largely Protestant Christians, we are vastly inferior to the supremacy of the One True Faith."

Ok, I've used a little (!) hyperbole in the unbolded sections, but I think Benedict is fishing for something like the bolded section in his request for immunity. I think he wants to clean house - maybe he realises his previous blocking of the progress of justice was a mistake, and he now wants to make amends - but want to do it in the traditional Catholic manner. By that I don't mean burning anyone at the stake, or reintroducting the Inquisition, but instead that he wants to deal with things entirely within the Catholic faith, without outside "interference" from institutions like the press or the justice system.

I don't doubt that whatever that intended "solution" involves will not be satisfactory from the viewpoint of justice - the Catholic Church as a whole should get a bad press over what they did to cover things up for so long and the individual abusers and their protectors should be criminally prosecuted.

I'm just not all that sure that Catholicism has ever been entirely comfortable with the idea that the priesthood should be subject to secular justice at all, even though they have now formally accepted the principle.

Well so far the President hasnt said anything in terms of supporting the Pope...

Im wondering though, if Bush does not back the Pope, can Ratzinger then be deposed?

Hmmmm... even if the legal team for the plaintiffs find a way around the Pope's diplomatic immunity, how are they going to depose him? It's unlikely that he will willingly come to the United States, sit down in a conference room with their lawyers and a court reporter, and answer questions under oath.

In the end, the whole Ratzinger-deposition issue might be a moot point, however. Yes, the plaintiffs would like to depose him, but they may still be able to build their case without him; and although Ratzinger is named as one of the co-defendants, the plaintiffs are probably more concerned with the Catholic Church itself and its ability to pay significant damages.

A Pope cannot be deposed. Once someone has become the Bishop of Rome, then they retain that post until they either die or abidcate.

Officially the Pope is infallible and they highest authority on Earth under God. Therefore no-one has the power to depose the Pope - and as the Pope is infallible, the Pope cannot take any action that would require him to be deposed.

I am suprised the Vatican even made the request. The Pope is immune from prosecution in the US as a Head of State. The Vatican City is a country in its own right. The fact that it is the home of the Bishop of Rome and head of the Roman Catholic Church is irrelevant. This immunity is unaffected by what Benedict may have done prior to his becoming Pope, a Head of State cannot be prosecuted under diplomatic immunity.

This to me looks simply like the Pope is asking Bush to sort this out quickly with the minimum of fuss. It is standard protocol for Heads of State to do these things for each other, so that international relations to not become entangled in beaurocracy from a lower level.

Officially, the Pope is infallible and the highest authority on Earth? Officially to whom? Perhaps to members of the Catholic Church, but not to non-Catholics or secular world governments. The Pope's ability to avoid a deposition springs from his diplomatic status, not the concept of infallibility or religious authority. Or perhaps you were trying to be humorous about this(?) What exactly do you mean when you say that since he is infallible, he can't take any action that would require him to be deposed? Do you mean that he can't make mistakes, and in a deposition he might make a mistake, therefore he can't take one?

Officially to the Catholic Church, who would be the only organisation able to depose the Pope.

I wasn't being humourous, the USA has absolutely no authority over who is the head of the Catholic Church. That is the purview of the Holy See.

However, it could be that we are talking at cross purposes here. I was answering the question 'can Ratzinger be deposed' - and the answer is no, because 'deposed' means 'removed from authority.

However you just referred to a'deposition' which means EITHER that the act of removing someone from authority OR the act of making a statement in court.

If we are talking about removing Ratzinger from his position as Pope, then no, can't be done, certainly not by the US and in fact, probably not my anyone, as the official position of the Catholic Church is that the Pope is infallible and the highest authority on earth under God.

If we are talking about Ratzinger making a deposition in court, then I would imagine he can avoid that as a Head of State.

Ah, the source of the confusion has quickly come into focus. Phoenix24 was wondering if the Pope's deposition could take place in connection with the civil suit in Texas (read backwards through the posts); but as with many things in English and the use of single words, there was a mutual misunderstanding about what we were talking about. Kind of humorous, don't you think?

I heard that the plaintiffs can go to the State Department and ask for a hearing... And "supposedly" they can ask that since the president didnt give his "okay" in terms of the immunity that the pope is asking, that they could go ahead and depose him in rome...

Ill find out more about this issue on Monday...

Infallable huh?? So infallablity means that its okay for Mr. Ratzinger to provide documents to Bishops around the world that show how to hide crimes of sex abuses within the church??

Im sorry, to me Mr. Ratzinger is just that, Mr. Ratzinger, and he as we all are, are subject to laws and consequences... Thats all IMO though...

1. No. Ratzinger did that before he became Pope, so I don't think the current position can save you. It's like someone murders someone. The next day, murder becomes legal. You can still prosecute the previous day murderer.

2. I don't think anybody can guess.

My policy is to punish sex offenders harshly. If the Pope was helping sex offenders, he shouldn't be Pope. I can respond to those who say otherwise by asking this: would you let Ted Bundy be Pope?

Beetlemeetle is correct- he is a head of state, and the GOVERMENT of the Vatican, a country of and unto itself, has, in THIER laws, the idea that the pope is infallible and speaking for God- so no, he can not be deposed as a head of state- any more than Fidel Castro can, Saddam Hussien could without a war, or any other despot in the world that sets themselves as more than human in behavior or power.

The only way to do this is to force it- through UN sanctions and whatnot. Invade the country of the Vatican, kill his henchman and main officers etc, arrext all those we think that are culpable in his crimes - and even then, most would think we were violating international law- wait, we are talking about the Catholic church right? -

No, if the Catholic church wishes to be a nation that supports pedophilia- it is totally within it's rights as a soveriegn nation- no one said it is right, fair or moral, it is just the way it is.

Regardless of whether we're talking about on U.S. soil or at the Vatcian, the point is that he isn't going to do it, period. How do you propose that they make him sit for a deposition, Phoenix24?

--

As an aside, CruisingRam, we were talking about a deposition for a civil suit, not deposing him as in removing him from office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Even Catholic doctrine says that the Pope is infallible only when speaking ex cathedra as described above. Being non-Catholic, non-Christian, none of this pertains to me.

In every day life he is as fallible as the rest of us. His arthritic fingers may make as many typos a mine. He might at times forget to feed the cat or flush the toilet Who knows, he could from time to time put his shoes on the wrong feet. All that equates to being a fallible human.

I understand that- and I meant- the only way to "take a deposition" is to "depose him" LOL- literally, that is true, as head of state, and a key player in the pedophilia case, that is the only way we can make him do what we want- invade his country, lay siege to his fortress etc- might makes right after all!

Very easily... You get a court order from a Federal Judge that states that Mr. Ratzinger be deposed, in rome or here, it doesnt matter...

You have to understand, Judge Rosenthal (the judge presiding) doesnt like Mr. Ratzinger at all... And she doesnt have any pressure to rule in any way... Thats the great thing about Federal Judges, no constituents to worry about...

The Judge issued an order for the lawyers representing the Pope, they must give as status report on the issue of immunity every 30 days...

So far, the President hasnt given the Pope his immunity... Pretty soon, your gonna have to go on with the case, and if the issue of immunity is not resolved, the Judge will allow the Plaintiffs to get whatever they need from Mr. Ratzinger...

Let's say the plaintiffs and their attorneys already have their court order from the judge ordering that the Pope sit for a deposition. Let's pretend they've travelled all the way to Vatican in Rome, and the Pope even allows them inside to have an audience, under the watchful eye of the Swiss Guard. They politely tell the Pope they are here to take his deposition, and the Pope smiles and replies "No."

How are you going to make the Pope cooperate, Phoenix24? How are you going to force him to participate in a deposition?

Now i dont know alot about the specifics of law and such, but if someone has a court order stating they have to give a deposition and they dont appear or dont cooperate, isnt that basically a show of their guilt and since this is a civil case, wouldnt they HAVE to pay whatever amount of money that the plaintiffs deem necessary according to the damage model??

Mind you, the Archdiocese of Houston/Galveston are named as well... I dont know alot about this stuff, im just curious as to what you think...

If a party to a civil suit refuses to obey a court order to sit for a deposition, it is not an admission of guilt, even though I'm sure the lawyers for the plaintiffs will want to color in that way. It is a violation of the order, which could subject the violator to possible penalties, personally, for being in contempt of the ruling. However, one has to wonder how effective any contempt proceedings against Mr. Joseph Ratzinger personally would really be, given that he is the Pope, a head of state, and resides in Europe. Many courts will hesitate and think twice before ordering something that in all likelihood can not be enforced, and would create an international political problem.

However, as I have said previously, if the plaintiffs are unable to take the personal deposition of Mr. Ratzinger regarding the document he authored while head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it doesn't necessarily completely derail their case. They still have the document itself, and many other witnesses and pieces of evidence to work with. Mr. Ratzinger's absence from the proceedings deprives the plaintiffs of certain elements, but the Pope won't be at the trial to aid and testify on behalf of the defense, either. As a humorous aside, can anyone picture the Pope in the witness box at the court in Texas, being asked to place his hand on a bible and swear an oath to tell the truth?

Briefly returning to the issue regarding the Papacy's unusual request to the President, I don't think it really matters. The general consensus is that as a head of state, the Pope already has diplomatic immunity, and it would not serve the President's interests, politically, to throw his hat in the ring and get involved.

Either way, all this is giving the church negative publicity... And as with any other "business", thats bad news...

My take is that if the President doesnt give the Pope the immunity he wants and the court orders his deposition be taken, maybe he would want to settle...

Can you see a lawyer going to the Vatican and deposing the guy who headed the department that dealt directly with the sex abuse scandals that rocked the catholic church??

Anyways Azure, thanks for giving your two cents... Helps me understand this mess alittle more...

Hey guys, the Perp i mean Pope got his immunity...

I have here the official response of the United States Department of Justice to the request of the Pope's immunity... Here is some of what it says...

The undersigned attorneys for the United States Department of Justice, at the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, respectfully inform this honorable court, of the interest of the United States of America in the pending lawsuit against Joseph Raztinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, the sitting head of state of the holy see, and suggest to the court the immunity of the pope... Then it goes on and sets forth some precedents...

I truly believe that this man is guilty of covering up these crimes and is hiding behind his new "title"

He should be sued as the former head of the office of inquisitions not as pope... Oh well, whatever...

Here is a link to go with your post.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...5291214,00.html

Hey, man, where did you get that link to that story?? Ive been doing a search all over the net for that article...

If the lawyer representing the John Does goes and tries to object to the issuance of Immunity on grounds of the 1st Amendment, do you guys think he has a chance to win??

Probably not. I say this because establishment clause challenges to the Vatican's sovereign status and diplomatic relations have been litigated in the courts previously and they were rejected. Essentially, the U.S. Goverment's relations with the Holy See are of a secular political nature, not a religious one.

You might want to look at these articles for some additional background information and commentary:

"Diplomatic Relations with Holy See," America Magazine, March 16th, 1985

"Three Years Later: U.S. Relations with the Holy See," America Magazine, January 17th, 1987

I have to go along with AC on this. From his links we see that from the beginning of our history we've had an ambassdor to the Vatican.

It would be hard to reverse a precedent of that longstanding.

For better or worse, it looks like we are stuck with it.

Actually that is not quite true, or at least is misleading. I admit I may have misunderstood BoF though and I could be playing with the wording too much.

The wording makes it sound like we have had an ambassador to the Vatican ever since the beginning and while we did have one at the beginning there was a long time we didn't. However that is just me being anal again.

The important point, which I agree with, is that we did have an ambassador in the early days of the nation. If the creators of the Constitution and, more importantly, the Bill of Rights did not see a problem with having an official delegation to the Vatican how can we say that it violates the First Amendment? They wrote it for heavens sakes (pun intended).

That brings up an interesting question of how much we are misinterpreting the whole church/state thing. Not trying to go off topic. Just throwing that out for food for though. MMMMmmmm fooood.

Anyway......

I believe that if it were up to me, I'd love to see the Pope deposed and possibly imprisoned. However, being a head of state, he holds the same immunity that any other head of state would. Frankly, this does not hold true for the rest of the domestic catholic church and their implications in the case.

Political ramifications? eeewwww....
We all know that the religious "right" tends to vote republican, but the Catholic church holds a unique place in American society. It represents ties to "old money", politics on both sides of the aisle, and is often intentionally seperated from the rest of Christianity in the US.
Will this positively or negatively affect the President? Who really knows. My first inclination is that it might polarize Catholics, but many may believe in due process and that the Church isn't beyond personal accountability. Many may be on the "Anti-GW" bandwagon already... who knows. Voting statistics don't accurately portray religious demographics to that extent.

Do you think it was a coincidence that the Papal Conclave elected Joseph Ratzinger to Pope status because of his ties to the Office of Inquisitions??

What i mean is that they (the Cardinals) knew that Ratzinger was dirty or had ALOT of info on the sex abuse scandals... So they elected him Pope because they knew that he would be immune from any depositions...

Coincidence?? Of course the Cardinals knew Joseph Ratzinger was being sued as well before the Papal Conclave...

I DEFINATELY think he should be deposed... Anyways...

This would require over one hundred different individuals to have conspired together to elect Ratzinger to the position of Pope for life simply to help him avoid appearing for a civil suit deposition in another country. Frankly, its an incredulous proposition.

Since a conspiracy of that nature seems a bit beyond the realm of "proving" or "disproving," I would suggest considering this. It wasn't necessary for Ratzinger to become Pontiff to really avoid this civil suit. He could have continued to go about his business, and deliberately chosen to ignore the court-ordered subpoena for deposition. Why should he really care if a federal circuit judge sitting in Texas, USA finds him to be in contempt of court in a civil suit? As long as he doesn't set foot on United States soil, for all intensive purposes he is practically beyond reach.

There was a period when the Papal States were part of Italy. From AC's link:



http://www.americamagazine.org/reese/america/a-wilson.htm

There would only have been need for an Ambassador to Italy during that time.

*****************

Edited to add:

Apparently there have been some recent periods when there was no envoy. Just because we recognize a state does not obligate a president to appoint an ambassador. After the ugliness of the 1960 Presidential election, I can see why Kennedy might have avoided this at all cost. There have also been periods in our history when anti-Catholicism was more rampant than others. Appointing an ambassador during such times woud have created more political heat.

******************

I have no problem with the U. S. having an ambassador to the Vatican as long as the ambassador, the president or other other U. S. official, when making a state visit, does not participate in nonsense like kissing the papal ring.

If U. S. official[s] are Catholic or for some other reason want to do this, they can arrange for a private meeting, away from news cameras.

Ostensibly they are secular. But what if Mr. Ratzinger has admitted in his pleadings with the court that he is part of the "Roman Catholic Church." Isnt that a judicial admission with which he is now estopped or stuck rather?

Heres an interesting side note to this already interesting case... Judge Rosenthal has asked for a briefing schedule from the lawyers representing the John Doe's... Even though the United States has asked Judge Rosenthal to give the pope immunity, she has not granted it to him...

Im thinking this, Judge Rosenthal doesnt HAVE to give the Pope his immunity... I mean, she is a federal judge so if she rules against the immunity status, it wont bother her that much...

Furthermore, the bishop who was promoted to the Office of the Inquisitions, i dont know his name is also involved in a similar suit in the Northwest... I think his name was Bishop Lozano or something to that effect, since he became the Head of that office he recently asked a Federal judge to grant him immunity, that Federal Judge declined... Precedence anyone??

Opinions??

The pope already has immunity so I think Bush will stay far away from the issue and not address it or get involved.