The Pope visited Britain in 2010. I know, i was there - in Edinburgh, booing the fascist prick as he drove past.
However, at the time, leading members of the British public (most notably Professor Dawkins and, by extension, Christopher Hitchens) as well as many important figures within the British constitutional and legal machinery called for an arrest warrant to be granted for the arrest of the pope to answer certain criminal allegations. ALL legal proceedings were vetoed on that occasion and the warrant could not be issued - why? - because the Pope, as the head of state of the Vatican, is granted diplomatic immunity in international law.
The assumption, therefore, that the Pope should resign because of allegations leveled against him is absurd: He could happily live out the rest of his tenure with full immunity granted and never be prosecuted. Why would he resign, and, essentially, place himself outside any immunity by doing so? I shall say it again: this goes beyond logic, it is absurd - there must be a separate reason for his resignation since the belief that he would sacrifice himself to the law courts is just unreal. He would never do such a thing; has, in fact, resisted such measures with well-known energy before. This all just seems contrary to reason and erudition. I can't believe it.