International Court dismisses SNAP’s case against the Holy See

I saw this at These Stone Wallsthe blog for Fr. Gordon MacCrae, in prison serving time for a crime he more than likely did not commit.

The post is longish, but here is the first part:

The International Criminal Court Has Dismissed SNAP’s Last Gasp

[...]

The headline was “The Hague Tosses SNAP’s Nutty Lawsuit Against the Vatican, SNAP’s Latest P.R. Stunt Exposed.” The Hague is the seat of government of the Netherlands, and the base of the International Court of Justice. It took almost two years, but the International Criminal Court has rejected a 2011 attempt to prosecute the Pope and the Vatican with a charge of “crimes against humanity.” The petition was brought by SNAP – the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. SNAP was aided and abetted in the petition by the radically left-leaning Center for Constitutional Rights based in New York.

In rejecting the petition last month, the International Criminal Court ruled that SNAP’s claims do not “appear to fall within the jurisdiction of the court” which accepts only cases reflecting “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.” In other words, as The Media Report’s David F. Pierre pointed out, the ICC is not a place to air shameless publicity stunts.

[...]

Shameless. Publicity. Stunts.

What I want to know is whether or not SNAP will again protest at the upcoming LCWR meeting in Orlando.

There is a lot of information in the longish post.  You might check it out.

Technorati Tags: , ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Clerical Sexual Abuse of Children, The Campus Telephone Pole, The Drill, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to International Court dismisses SNAP’s case against the Holy See

  1. Pingback: What will the Catholic Church be like in A. D. 2,978? - BigPulpit.com

  2. Andrew says:

    Is there a penalty for frivolous charges?

  3. Nancy D. says:

    The heinous acts of rogue priests against children, the majority of which were teen-age boys, is a serious crime against humanity. This does not change the fact that those who participated in and enabled these heinous crimes were not the Faithful; they were those persons residing physically in Christ’s Church who deny Christ’s teaching on sexual morality.

  4. Nancy D. says:

    One can only be an apostate from The True Church. How to have a Great Apostasy that could, if it were possible, fool even the elect? You allow those persons who deny the truth about the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person from The Beginning, to remain within His Church, causing chaos and confusion as they lead a multitude astray.
    Why would Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict allow a Great Apostasy to occur? The answer is, they wouldn’t. No doubt, there is a group of very powerful persons within The Vatican who have conspired to deceive and undermine our Catholic Faith. As the veil is being lifted, Pray for our Holy Father, who had to flee because the wolves were at his door.

  5. Pingback: Breaking News: Pope Is Not A Criminal Against Humanity | Mundabor's Blog

  6. Random Friar says:

    Fr. Z: In your charity, could you publicize the move by the California legislature to extend, yet again, the statute of limitations against religious and private (but not public schools, imagine that)? You can imagine what four-letter word or acronym comes to mind here.

    http://www.the-tidings.com/index.php/news/newslocal/3503-sb-131-passes-state-senate-moves-to-assembly

  7. APX says:

    Andrew,
    I’m not entirely certain off the top of my head, but it would come down to legal jurisdiction.

    I know back in the 80s in eastern Canada a parish tried to criminally charge a group of people who wanted to receive communion kneeling an on the tongue with disrupting a religious service. The trial judge convicted them and it was appealed a number of times. Finally it went to the Supreme Court of Canada who reversed the ruling.

    It’s in Case Law now, just in case some tried to pull a similar stunt.

    You can read about it here:
    http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/34/index.do