When our prez granted the pope immunity from child molestation coverup charges, did that prove his guilt?

Question

In 2005, Pope Benedict was facing a lawsuit accusing him of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian. So, he asked Bush to grant him immunity from lawsuits in the U.S. And of course, Bush granted it.

If he had nothing to worry about, why did he need immunity?

If you are curious about this, you should rent "Deliver us from Evil" ... it's about the Catholic church's cover-up of hundreds of child molestation cases in the US.

Answer 1

You Americans are not the only ones here on Yahoo.
But to answer your question, yes it does seem like he is guilty to ask for imunity.

Answer 2

In Washington, US State Department spokeswoman Gerry Keener, said that the pope already is considered a head of state and automatically has diplomatic immunity. Keener said Benedict doesn't have to ask for immunity and Bush doesn't have to grant it.

International legal experts said today it would be "virtually impossible" for the case to succeed because the pope, as a head of state, had diplomatic immunity. "There's really no question at all, not the vaguest legal doubt, that he's immune from the suit, period," said Paolo Carozza, an international law specialist at the University of Notre Dame Law School

Answer 3

Bush did it for the good of all humanity. If the pope were found guilty - given the pope's infallibility - millions of Catholics all over the world would have to start molesting children, or at least cover it up.

Answer 4

Yes Deliver us from this post---it is Evil enough.

Answer 5

Please cite the documents or provide links to these claims so that the rest of us can do proper research. Thank you.

With love in Christ.

Answer 6

Must've been a holy molestation ;)