>>4734591 (pb)

Anons, this is bullshit and does NOT belong in the notables.

The article cited in the middle graphic refers to a priest who was part of the Vatican's diplomatic corps, working in the Vatican Embassy in an official capacity.

But the graphic stupidly claims that "Catholic Vatican Pope (sic) & Priests enjoy diplomatic immunity," as if every single Catholic priest is a diplomat. Seriously, wtf?

If the OP is so brain-dead that he can't see the difference between a real diplomat who is also a priest, and a man who is "just" a priest…he doesn't belong here. GTFO, please

>>4737106

"ALL previous breads"? We're currently on #6045. I'm just as pissed off by newfag cluelessness as anybody, but that's a bit much to ask of them I think…