As it happens, I supported – and still support – the Iraq war, but this is considerably more sensible than Hitchens’ crusade to arrest the Pope:
It should also be remembered that Hitchens was an outspoken advocate of the 2003 Iraq War which some international lawyers deemed illegal. A case could arguably be made, therefore, to have himself brought to the ICC for war crimes on the grounds of being a leading cheerleader for an illegal war. After all, he now seems to be a keen proselytizer for international law, at least when it suits his ideological goals.
The difference is that speaking out for an illegal cause is not, in and of itself, illegal. Actively protecting those who break the law from discovery or prosecution, however, is.
Actively protecting those who break the law from discovery or prosecution
Something the Pope does not appear to have done.
You may be right, David, but questions of guilt or innocence are usually left up to a jury to decide–at least when the accused doesn’t wear a pointy hat. The evidence thusfar–Ratzinger’s signature on a vatican letter urging the church to delay defrocking an abusive priest and his failure to report known accusations to law enforcement while heading the branch of the church responsible for the investigation of sex abuse–would certainly be enough for an arrest if, again, the accused were a bus driver instead of the Pope.
We must also be mindful of the sanctity of the Confessional. If His Holiness became aware of these sins by means of the Confessional than he is obligated and required to keep it between himself, the confessor, and God. Seeing that God is the highest authority there is, even higher than any secular government or court, His Holiness must comply with God before he even thinks about anything with secular authorities.
Of course in the end God will judge if His Holiness did right, or wrong.