Pope Francis urges decisive action against sex abuse

[deurbano]

19. I don't know.

I think the immunity granted by Italy would only be needed if the ex-pope goes outside Vatican City. (Since it's surrounded by Italy.) I don’t believe that type of protection would be needed if he stays within the boundaries of Vatican City because that’s a sovereignty issue (also addressed in the Lateran Pacts). Article 22 mentions "acts committed within the Italian territory which are considered to be criminal by the law of both states"... so maybe that provides an "out" for the Vatican-- which could choose not to consider certain acts (alleged to have been committed) by the pope to be criminal. And if the alleged crimes didn't take place in Italy, wouldn't that be another barrier to prosecution? (I mean, I have no idea how it works, but if the accusers have to go through Italy to get to the Vatican...)

At the link you provided, the reason given for the 1985 modification to the treaty was: <<Rather than lose the favourable Lateran Pacts, the Vatican let them be revised to remove mention of a state religion (in the Supplementary Protocol to Article 1).>> It seems like it was also an attempt to modernize and clarify the agreement.

However, the specific modifications outlined do not seem to reference Article 8 (from the original pacts), and since the position of king was long gone by 1985… maybe the intent was to allow the pope to retain the same immunity (etc.) afforded the king (when there was a king)? Otherwise, why not modify/modernize that section as well? (Of course, as the Head of State of an entity recognized as sovereign by Italy, a pope is already protected, right?)

On the other hand, is the following still in effect in Italy?!! <<…public insults committed within Italian territory against the person of the Supreme Pontiff, whether by means of speeches, acts, or writings, shall be punished in the same manner as offences and insults against the person of the King.>>

I don’t see how Article 8 would protect an EX-pope, though. The Reuters article I linked seems to indicate he gets Lateran mileage (immunity-wise) in Italy just from being a citizen of Vatican City: <<After he resigns, Benedict will no longer be the sovereign monarch of the State of Vatican City, which is surrounded by Rome, but will retain Vatican citizenship and residency. That would continue to provide him immunity under the provisions of the Lateran Pacts while he is in the Vatican and even if he makes jaunts into Italy as a Vatican citizen.>> Maybe the reporter is wrong… or maybe there are legal precedents in Italy (regarding interpretation of the Lateran Pacts) that are not being mentioned. Or is it that he is still considered some kind of high ranking “official” of a place Italy recognizes as sovereign? (With diplomatic immunity as a result of the sovereign state recognition in the Lateran Pacts?) Or… who knows? Ultimately, I guess the treaty’s interpretation is up to the Italian government.

Also, I didn’t realize there are other places (besides Vatican City) that are considered part of Vatican City (sovereignty-wise):
<<During the Conclave to find the next pope, Benedict will reside at the Apostolic Palace on Lake Albano, southwest of Rome. Benedict XVI will stay at the Vatican’s summer residence from Feb. 28 until the convent of Mater Ecclesiae (Mother of the Church) will be ready. Here is a look at the Vatican, Castel Gandolfo, and the Apostolic Palace.>> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/from-vatican-city-to-castel-gandolfo-the-popes-digs/

He was flown to the Apostolic Palace by helicopter. So, if the Italians decided not to provide immunity (just for speculation’s sake, since I can’t imagine that happening), could they refuse to let him use Italian airspace to get from papal villa to papal villa? (Though I think he will just hunker down in Vatican City once his digs are ready…)
.