Richard Dawkins: Arrest The Pope During UK Visit

[kallipolis]

At least arrest him for horrid fashion sense.

That I can agree. But remember he is from Bavaria.

 

[kallipolis]

Yeah, to be fair I really should wait until he is arrested, put on trial, and judged before I venture an opnion. As if.

PS. Unlike many here, I have never claimed that my 'reasoning' was in sense 'objective'.

Fairness is best demonstrated by reading the Vatican's replies to the media allegations. By no stretch of the imagination I should imagine that such fair play would be a difficult exercise for you.

And of course poor old Josef Ratzinger is German. And for the Germans, he is a Bavarian. What could be worse? I leave your sense of fairness to answer that rhetorical question.

I have noted your reasoning powers. Or, lack thereof.

 

[kallipolis]

Back in 1975 the current leader of the Catholic church in Ireland, Sean Brady, was a 36yr old priest, who under the bishop's orders had been gathering evidence on paedophile priest Brendan Smyth. He would no doubt have heard tales of horrific abuse from the victims and yet what did he do......him along with the bishop committed the children to vows of secrecy, committing them to "never directly or indirectly, by means of a nod, or by word, or writing, or in any other way, and under whatever type of pretext, even for the most urgent and serious cause . . . commit anything against fidelity to this secret".

Never mind criminal charges or prospect of being arrested, sure he hasn't even resigned as leader of the Catholic church in Ireland. He had a few weeks of reflection there to let the storm blow over and back to normal business. The time for reflection was 30years ago when he swore 2 children to secrecy while the paedophile priest was moved to another parish and continued to abuse.

And then we wait with bated breath on this letter from the pope to the irish catholics and he apologises yes, but totally distances the failings of the irish church from the vatican, implying the secularisation of Irish society, the falling off of religious devotion and failures to adhere to canon law were the real causes of the sexaul abuse.

The pope wont get arrested, but I want to see something happening. What victims deserve the truth and not the useless pontificating of the church that's happening so far.

Cardinal Sean Brady should resign immediately. He was an accessory to the cover up. But this is only part of the story. As you are also aware the abuser, Brendan Smyth fled to the Irish Republic from the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland courts.

The inertia of the Attorney General of the Irish Republic in processing the extradition request from the Northern Ireland courts is also evidence of the complicity of politicians in the Irish Republic in protecting this criminal abuser.

The Irish Government collapsed in 1974 (Albert Reynolds was PM) as a result of this failure by the Irish civil authorities to cooperate with the Northern Ireland civil authorities.

Eventually Brendan Smyth was extradited to Northern Ireland where he served time in prison, and then was transferred to the Irish Republic where he died in prison from a heart attack.

I am a very enthusiastic observer of the sexual abuse problems affecting Irish society. Not just with Catholic clergy.

 

[Maelstrom]

The church is an institution that may be flawed. However, it provides education, food to the homeless, shelters, and many other good works that cannot be abandon in a recession. I may have left the church...but I respect it. Regardless of a few Ill-Willed members of the clergy. Take every member of the clergy who has done wrong and weigh them against the 1 billion members of the church and see the percentage. I do not see basis in the theological doctrine anymore. However, The church does more good than bad. So what if they hate gays and a few priests commit crimes. Does that mean that we should let the homeless in their shelters go and die? No. We need to find solutions to the flaws the church has and move on. Not campaign for more destruction.

This is such an absurd statement I don't even know where to start... I'm sorry but maybe you haven't had a decent history lesson on the catholic church and the horrors it has committed. You need to do research before you make such ridiculous claims.

By far and without a doubt the Catholic Church is not a force of good on this Earth. If you weigh the good things it has done against the atrocities it has committed. There is no comparison. If you think that a few homeless shelters make up for
The crusades, The Inquisition, The support of antisemitism, The support of Hitler in WW2, The torture of Galileo, The genocide of the indigenous people of South America, The lies spread about condom use in Africa, and lets not forget their torture and rape of children across the globe. (especially deaf ones, they can't speak about it can they?) Then, I think you need to take a college course in ethics.

Also, this help you speak of is conditional, especially in Africa. Where they only help if the people pledge not to use any form of contraception. The pope spreads the lie that condom use increases the risk of getting AIDS. It is amazing to me that anyone would come and defend them. This is a cult leader who is claiming he is above the law because he talks to god.

Whatever, tell that to your jail mate Pope Benedict. When he gets arrested I'll throw a party in celebration.

 

[star-warrior]

Well, if the Pontiff does wind up in jail, I hope he can experience the full extent of condomless (and hopefully lube free) sex.

 

[Negasta]

Sigh... I'm with Michael Ruse. Dawkins makes me ashamed to be an atheist. There is nothing lamer than pretending not to understand the nuance of a situation in order to make a political point.

There is absolutely no nuance in protecting child molesters and personally ordering the cover-up of their deeds. The current Pope is a deeply evil man and should be imprisoned for the rest of of his worthless life. If he tried to set foot is South Africa, I would be waiting at the airport to arrest him myself and it wouldn't even be a citizen's arrest as I am police officer.

Every international agreement on human rights calls what the pope did a Crime Against Humanity and he should be treated as the vile piece of trash he is.

People such as yourself and Ruse enable people like the Pope in their evil and are just as bad for making excuses for them.

 

[Joshua_me]

Well, if the Pontiff does wind up in jail, I hope he can experience the full extent of condomless (and hopefully lube free) sex.

^As well as an entirely new use for his rosary beads.

 

[bankside]

Sigh... I'm with Michael Ruse. Dawkins makes me ashamed to be an atheist. There is nothing lamer than pretending not to understand the nuance of a situation in order to make a political point.

Buried under just what nuance is there a defence for showing more compassion to a pedophile than the victim of the pedophile? Is there a case to make on behalf of the Pope? Well, lets hear that case in front of a judge.

In this case, there certainly is.

Sigh... lame.

The only thing lamer than lame is defending this pope by making insinuations about his accusers' arguments without actually describing what this supposed nuance is.

But your honour, he's innocent. He just is. There is a nuance; I saw it myself...a fleeting, intangible nuance. It is not clear cut. He just HAS to be innocent. There were other factors.

None of that counts as reasoning. Spell it out, or send Mr. Pedopope to the dock for a proper trial.

 

[ViennaExpat83]

He was the director of the Congregation of the Faith, the Vatican institution which was supposed to deal with disciplinary questions like these, for about 20 years.

He wrote the 2001 letter, telling bishops to keep the cases secret.

We now know of more and more cases from the 1980s where he ignored or dragged his feet on various terrible cases -- like the priest messing with deaf boys.

If the pope were the head of a large multinational company instead of a church how many people would be making excuses for him? He would already be in jail.

And don't tell me there was a culture of corruption and secrecy in the Church.... there was one at Enron too and there is one in Wall street. Does not mean people should not get prosecuted for their deeds.

Does not just have to do with him being pope. If he were pope but had had minimal involvement with handling the pedophilia cases then I would say don't make him a scapegoat. But, he was the director of the Vatican department supposed to deal with such disciplinary questions for over 20 years. The buck stopped at his door. Time to take responsibility.

Dawkins and Hitchens are also doing something that needs to be done -- not allowing religion to be above the law.

 

[kallipolis]

For those who are willing to hear the other side of the argument, the following from the Catholic News Service might assist clarify the famous 2001 letter. :

quote

The issue surfaced March 8 when Germany's justice minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, said that as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the pope had in 2001 written a directive that said serious sex abuse cases "are not supposed to be divulged outside the church."

The minister's reference was to the 2001 document, "De delictis gravioribus" ("On more serious crimes"), which gave the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith juridical control over how the church handles cases of sexual abuse of minors by priests. It was seen inside the Vatican as an important tool in making sure perpetrators were discovered and brought to justice.

But much media attention has focused on the fact that the 2001 document said such cases were covered by "pontifical secret," which meant they would be handled in strict confidentiality. Critics saw that as a way for the church to hide accusations from civil authorities.

Vatican officials said it was important for people to know that the confidentiality imposed on the church's internal handling of abuse cases does not exempt bishops or others from reporting serious facts and accusations to civil authorities. They emphasized that the Vatican document dealt with how church law treats such cases, not as a substitute for civil law, which deals with the crime separately.

"The purpose of 'pontifical secret' here was to respect the rights of the accused and of the witnesses, including the victim, to confidentiality," said one informed Vatican official. He said civil law often has similar provisions to protect confidentiality when a potential crime is under investigation.

"But this is an ecclesiastical law. It does not affect the duty to obey civil law," he added.

The official said the Vatican has never given bishops directives against cooperation with competent civil authorities. On the contrary, he said, the Vatican expects local bishops to comply with laws that mandate reporting of sex abuse allegations.

For example, the U.S. bishops' norms on sexual abuse, which were revised and approved by the Vatican in 2002, stated clearly: "The diocese/eparchy will comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and will cooperate in their investigation." In many cases, civil law mandates that church authorities report such allegations.

unquote

 

[kallipolis]

^Laughing out Loud.

Please translate. I am rather dumb at reading the mind of other people.

 

[ViennaExpat83]

Please translate. I am rather dumb at reading the mind of other people.

This line about the secrecy referring only to canonic law and internal handling of cases by the Church is very lame for one very obvious reason: if the secrecy in the letter really didn't refer at all to reporting the cases to civil authorities, then why did almost all of the bishops who received it interpret it as meaning to keep the cases secret from civil authorities.
Either dozens of bishops, who are fairly educated people, could not interpret a letter correctly... or they interpreted its message correctly and acted accordingly. Which is more likely?

 

[tider39]

I say arrest the old nazi and then be off with his head....Seriously, I do think the church is a huge mess and exists to promote the status-quo. The last thing the church wants is a "thinking" public that can see through all its myths and bull-shit. Dawkins makes sense....a dead but resurrected Jewish carpenter does not.

 

[maxracer]

First, it is unfathomable to me that so-called "men of god" have to be told and reminded to report child rape to the police. And it is equally unfathomable how anyone with a conscience can morally defend that organization. If any other organization in the world were responsible for so many rapes over such a long period, the leader and his culpable minions would all be indicted. If they want to claim extenuating circumstances in individual cases, let them plead their position in a public court like everyone else should.

 

[kallipolis]

This line about the secrecy referring only to canonic law and internal handling of cases by the Church is very lame for one very obvious reason: if the secrecy in the letter really didn't refer at all to reporting the cases to civil authorities, then why did almost all of the bishops who received it interpret it as meaning to keep the cases secret from civil authorities.
Either dozens of bishops, who are fairly educated people, could not interpret a letter correctly... or they interpreted its message correctly and acted accordingly. Which is more likely?

This is the dilemma. Some bishops have reported the abuse matters to the civil authorities, and others did not. It would not be accurate to say that most bishops did not report abuse matters to the police.

I follow these matters closely and recognise that there is a massive grey area.

One of the principle problems is that many, if not most of these abuse scandals can be traced back some 50 years. It thus makes the whole matter difficult to assess when the abuser, and his local bishop are dead.

I continue to read both sides of the argument in the hope of learning more.

 

[maxracer]

Massive grey area? An organization facilitated the rape of children for decades. In the majority of cases when they had an opportunity to either protect the children, or protect their asses, they chose to protect their own sorry asses. The only way to really learn more, hear both sides and be fair is to put all of them on trial. There is certainly enough evidence for indictments. If they truly believe they can defend themselves, then let them do it, publicly, in a court of law. They should welcome the chance to plead their case, not avoid it as they continue to do.

 

[Piquechampion]

^ Guy is crazy

That´s all