Amidst other drivel in the British press today is Richard Dawkins’ and Christopher Hitchens’ effort underway to set up a legal ambush for Pope Benedict when he makes a state visit to England in September. Drawing a patently absurd comparison to Augusto Pinochet’s 1998 arrest in London, Dawkins and Hitchens no doubt took heart in United Nations jurist Geoffrey Robertson’s recent demand that Benedict be prosecuted under “universal jurisdiction” procedures similar to those deployed to indict Slobodan Milosevic for his crimes against humanity.
Perhaps these two unruly fellows—Ditchkins in the First Things stylebook—simply think the moniker “village atheist” insufficient. But more astonishing than their overwrought public tone is their total lack of self-awareness and tact. How is it possible these two born again religion abusers expect a hearing as disinterested parties in the fight, following nothing more than a thirst for justice? It doesn’t require an iota of cynicism to see that the motivation in play is the sheer thrill of putting a pope in shackles, and that the Ditchkins monstrosity cares more about the trial than about the children. Sometimes atheism poisons everything.
April 12th, 2010 | 12:20 pm
How about actually acknowledging the fact that the Pope is guilty in some way/shape/form of covering up child abuse? That should be overlooked?
And what is wrong with wanting justice? That seems like an extremely reasonable desire if you ask me–much more so than the desire to cover up such heinous acts against children.
April 12th, 2010 | 12:28 pm
The pope-bashing has gotten slightly silly, hasn’t it.
April 12th, 2010 | 12:40 pm
Jillian,
Thank you for acknowledging that behind all the blather about “justice” is the fact that we have done away with “innocent until proven guilty” and that we have officially adopted “guilty until proven innocent” There is no other way to understand your statement “How about actually acknowledging the fact that the Pope is guilty in some way/shape/form of covering up child abuse?”.
In what way, shape or form is he guilty? Do you have proof? No, I didn’t think so.
April 12th, 2010 | 1:01 pm
Recent press reports about the pope’s alleged involvement in “covering up” sex abuse or “obstructing” investigations have been shown to be blatantly false. See here and here
April 12th, 2010 | 1:14 pm
Face it: a Church in which child (or more often teen) sex abuse could reach such levels (even if the number of actual perps was small) had serious problems. But what problems? The emerging story line from the Church is that the problems were impersonally administrative. That’s wrong, although the impersonality of the administration was part of the problem.
The Church has handed its enemies a perfect stick with which to beat it, and complaints about unfairness in this treatment strikes most of the world as myopia. This scandal is a knife that has opened the Church administration’s oyster and exposed its inner workings to secular challenge. It has made Ditchkens almost credible. To “get past” this crisis the Church must radically redesign the relations between clergy and laity. To strengthen the Church machine is no real answer to the machines’s failures.
April 12th, 2010 | 1:38 pm
“This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalized concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment.” – Hitchens.
Someone explain to me how this man is wrong?
I appreciate that nobody here likes atheists (especially me), but sometimes (like when the molestation is covered up as standard practice) the secular world gets things right where the church fails.
Ann, a letter has been discovered in which the Pope – then a Cardinal in charge of church disciplinary issues – ordered a cover-up and refused to sack a priest caught abusing little boys. The priest got caught abusing kids again years later.
The Pope might not be as guilty as Dawkins claims, but you must see how when employees of a global organisation have been caught abusing children in the USA, Ireland, Germany, Italy, the UK, and many many other countries, the figurehead of that organisation might come in for a bit of stick. Right?
April 12th, 2010 | 1:54 pm
Actually, what Dawkins himself says is, er, a bit different from what’s been reported:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5415,Richard-Dawkins-I-will-arrest-Pope-Benedict-XVI,Marc-Horne—-TimesOnline,page2#478580
April 12th, 2010 | 2:06 pm
The words “publicity stunt” come to mind.
April 12th, 2010 | 3:06 pm
In all this mock outrage, where is the demand for justice for a man (not a God) who covered up for a pedophile. It really is as simple as that. Dawkins and Hitchens, whatever you may call them, are standing up for the rule of law against religious privilege. A point you might understand if you calmed down for a minute.
April 12th, 2010 | 3:26 pm
Ann:
Your reference to the presumption of innocence is ironic. People get that when they face a court of law, which is what Hitchens and Dawkins are trying to get him to do.
April 12th, 2010 | 3:35 pm
Thank you, BlackSun, for providing the voice of reason in this conversation. Now that I’ve calmed down, I’ve come to realize that a citizen’s arrest by a grand-standing atheist with an admitted hostility towards the Church is exactly what’s called for in this situation. I realize that this solution would be a little more tidy if there was actually evidence that the Pope was culpable of wrongdoing, but in the spirit of calmness, let’s not let that get in the way. If you’ll excuse me, I’ve rounded up a few witches that need burning.
April 12th, 2010 | 4:04 pm
Dave W., try finding a fair prosecutor who would have the slightest interest in a case based on the “evidence” provided.
April 12th, 2010 | 6:01 pm
“Ann, a letter has been discovered in which the Pope – then a Cardinal in charge of church disciplinary issues – ordered a cover-up and refused to sack a priest caught abusing little boys. The priest got caught abusing kids again years later.”
Well, yes, that is what the newspaper article was designed to make you conclude. It’s especially easy to reach that conclusion if you focus mostly on headlines. The best I’ve seen is “Pope balked at defrocking priest over molestation”.
Unfortunately, that headline is, not to mince words, an out-and-out lie. The priest himself had requested laicization so that he could get married. In other words, Cardinal Ratzinger’s response HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY SORT OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING.
The disciplinary action had already been taken /years/ earlier, and entirely at the local level, when the priest was convicted in a secular court and was removed from ministry by his local bishop.
The AP story speaks of the local diocese “appealing” to the Vatican to defrock the priest — again, not true. What actually happened? As a matter of procedural course, the local bishop submitted his opinion as to whether the priest’s own request to be laicized should be granted. It was /this/ to which Cardinal Ratzinger was responding in the “smoking gun” letter of 1985.
It seems pretty clear that the Vatican wanted time to consider all the facts, and that very few, if any, of the facts had been provided to the Vatican at that point. It’s shameful that this is being spun by so many press outlets as an “obstruction of justice” when in fact it looks much more like it was exactly the opposite.
April 12th, 2010 | 7:39 pm
[...] reveals some indication of stress From CBS: Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse In School? First Things: The Village Atheists Lane Wallace: The Bias of Veteran Journalists Damian Thompson: You can say that again Fr. Lombardi: [...]
April 12th, 2010 | 8:07 pm
If Dawkins and Hitchens were really brave, they’d try arresting some of the Islamists who hang out in Great Britain, calling for war against the West.
April 12th, 2010 | 9:57 pm
By Article 8 of the Lateran Treaty, Italy is bound to defend the inviolability of the Roman Pontiff. To my knowledge, this portion of the treaty was not altered in the 1984 re-negotiations. So if Ditchkins engineers the arrest of the pope, does that mean that there will be war between Italy and the United Kingdom?
I exaggerate somewhat, of course. Still, I don’t know how this would play out. Any lawyers out there care to comment?
April 13th, 2010 | 7:21 am
Keep in mind that Dawkins, Hitchens & co are opportunistic attention-seekers trying to increase book sales.
Juicy headlines are like money in the bank. Ambiguity is carefully orchestrated.
D J Wray
April 13th, 2010 | 11:09 am
Ben Dunlap: I’m interested in your comments on the 1985 letter. Do you have any links to support what you say about it? All I have seen are claims that it is indeed a “smoking gun.”
April 13th, 2010 | 12:53 pm
I have a letter in today’s Wall Street Journal. See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304222504575174172911199864.html
The point I make is that there is no Catholic jail where defrocked priests are sent to. Once defrocked and no longer bound by ecclesiastical authority, they are still free and a threat to minors until arrested for another crime committed within the statute of limitations.
April 13th, 2010 | 4:55 pm
I’d like to point out a couple of things. First, there is no such thing as a defrocked priest because there is no such thing as defrocking. There is, however, removal from active priesthood, and not being allowed to work with or around children any more, and other steps which were taken in the cases recently in the news.
Second, people can actually read the documents and the details of the case rather than comment on vague assumptions and gossip. See here for details. The documents are available online. Laziness and ill will are obstacles to discovering the truth. Of course, I realize that many people are not interested in discovering truth at all.
April 13th, 2010 | 5:14 pm
I’d like to point out a couple of things. First, there is no such thing as a defrocked priest because there is no such thing as defrocking. There is, however, removal from active priesthood, and not being allowed to work with or around children any more, and other steps which were taken in the cases recently in the news.
Second, people can actually read the documents and the details of the case rather than comment on vague assumptions and gossip. See here for details. The documents are available online. Laziness and ill will are obstacles to discovering the truth. Of course, I realize that many people are not interested in discovering truth at all.
April 13th, 2010 | 5:15 pm
Sorry for the double post. I lost my internet connection and didn’t realize the post had gone through. Please delete this comment and the double post if possible. Thank you!
April 13th, 2010 | 5:51 pm
May the Pope get that which is coming to him if he was complicit.
Now, is the outrage and call for arrest really coming from the very same Richard Dawkins who argues that some are merely “gentle pedophiles” and that too much is made of some cases of pedophilia???
Find details here:
http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/torture-hell-atheism-and-%22gentle-pedophile%22
April 13th, 2010 | 6:39 pm
JB -
I’d start with these:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=632
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/04/mt-rainier-puyallup-and-defrocking.html
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2746
April 13th, 2010 | 8:08 pm
JB in CA: the New York Times posted a slew of original documents here: http://documents.nytimes.com/the-document-trail-stephen-kiesle
If you read these and then re-read the original AP story it becomes pretty clear that the AP story thoroughly mangled the facts. Lori Pieper gives a much better account here: http://subcreators.com/blog/2010/04/10/once-more-unto-the-breach/
April 13th, 2010 | 11:15 pm
JB in CA:
OK, I’ll bite. Try this summary:
http://popebenedictxvinews.blogspot.com/2010/03/pope-benedict-catholic-church-and.html
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact