Pharyngula

Posted by: Legion | March 17, 2010 9:26 PM

They say a fish rots from the head down, so it was inevitable that the Pope would eventually be personally linked to the RCC's ever-widening sex scandal.

Really, the jig's up. Anyone who thinks the Catholic church is anything more than a front for the world's largest pedophilia operation needs to have their head examined.

The question is this: How will the faithful rationalize Ratzi's clearly criminal and conspiratorial behavior? How will they keep the faith?

Is it too much to hope that we might see the impeachment* of a Pope?

*or whatever it is Catholics do when the stink on one of their own gets too big to ignore.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 17, 2010 9:40 PM

Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism!

Ratzinger himself may be banal, but his whole career has the stench of evil—a clinging and systematic evil that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel. What is needed is not medieval incantation but the application of justice—and speedily at that.

Afrellingmen. Nothing has changed, all the catholic criminal organization is good for is spreading evil.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | March 17, 2010 9:52 PM

They say a fish rots from the head down, so it was inevitable that the Pope would eventually be personally linked to the RCC's ever-widening sex scandal.

He was linked to the pedophile scandal years ago. In 2001, when then Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Inquisition Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he sent a letter, Crimen Sollicitationis, to all bishops requiring them to keep secret all information pertaining to clergy suspected of sex crimes on pain of excommunication.

Posted by: Peter H | March 17, 2010 9:59 PM

@ #7

You can't argue with stupidity.

Posted by: Philip Legge | March 17, 2010 10:25 PM

`Tis,

apparently Crimen sollicitationis dates from 1962, whereas the 2001 letter by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (as he then was) is De delictis gravioribus (English translation, On more serious violations).

I think (haven't looked at both letters in detail) the bit about excommunication was already in the 1962 letter; if so, the 2001 letter merely confirms it (by failing to contradict it).

Oh, and among the “more serious crimes”, we find (translated):

1. Taking or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious purpose or throwing them away.

Crackergate!

Posted by: Nomad | March 17, 2010 10:31 PM

I'm sometimes a less extreme atheist. I'm prone to look at organizations such as the catholic church more kindly than some here seem to regularly do. Not THAT kindly, you have to understand.. but more as a sort of banal parasite than an actual instrument of evil.

Then something like this is dredged up. Ratzi speaks out against the "crime" of reporting sexual abuse of children to the authorities and crafts carefully constructed regulations intended to keep the crimes secret and the perpetrators unpunished.

They really do think that they're above the law, don't they? If you belong to the club you get absolute protection to the extent that not protecting the criminals in their midst is considered cause for excommunication.

This will somewhat color any further statements I may hear Ratzi make. Not that I was ever particularly receptive to such assinine comments as the ever popular "condoms make AIDS worse" in the first place. But now whenever I see him talking I'll be imagining a little label hovering over him that says "this man protected child molesters and enabled them to molest more children" as he preaches absolute morality and threatens people with eternal damnation for choosing to have sex without producing offspring.

Here's a hint, Ratzi, in case you're confused. There is absolutely no chance of making babies if you get a choir boy drunk and make him suck your wang.

The timber in your own eye is blocking your view of the rest of the world, you pompous monster. Spend the rest of your natural life trying to get your own church in order and maybe, just maybe your successor will be in a position to be criticizing someone outside of the catholic church.

But I'm sure it's easier to ride around in an armored Mercedes and to tell poor people how to live their lives before returning to your own personal palace.

Posted by: Phasic | March 17, 2010 11:09 PM

This is what Philip Adams touched on in his presentation at the conference. Churches have generally been shrinking under their own power. The thing most likely to make a believer more moderate, distance themselves from the organisation or leave entirely are the actions of the organisation itself. We can help them with some of the arguments, but generally atheist books don't wrench people from the bosom of the church. Often the church (whichever one) drives them away.

And sometimes the best thing we can do is be there for them if they have questions, be aware of where they are coming from, and accept that it can sometimes be a long process for an individual.

Posted by: SC OM | March 17, 2010 11:25 PM

Cuttlefish:

(or click here for just the tango, but it's music only, no video)

It is wonderful. Thank you.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 17, 2010 11:29 PM

Caine, does it sound any better as “consecratarum specierum” in the original Latin?

No. It just sounds like solemn and spectacular stupid. ;)

Posted by: sandiseattle | March 18, 2010 12:16 AM

THANK YOU
I will so be able to sleep soundly tonight, my mind numbed by the comedy that is Pharyngula.

Posted by: Cowcakes | March 18, 2010 1:47 AM

FuckingCuntPrickCockSuckingArsesholeRapistsShitPeddlers. I think nothing makes me more furious than sanctimonious old men in dresses that do, condone and conceal such abominable acts.

Yes almost any organisation, especially those that are supposed to be responsible for children attract and have a percentage of child rapers, but the Roman Catholic Church stands supreme as the masters of concealment and denial. The sooner all of these perverted pulpit pontificates are rounded up and thrown into jail and forced to pick up soap in the shower block in font Hugo Hugecock, the murderer who was arse raped by a priest when he was six, the better.

Posted by: Colin | March 18, 2010 2:17 AM

Nomad

They really do think that they're above the law, don't they?

It would perhaps be fair to say that the Middle Ages were the struggle between the Catholic Church and the secular authorities to see who would come out on top. Most of the time, the Church won.

They just haven't caught on to the fact that we're a post-Enlightenment society, yet, it seems.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 18, 2010 2:34 AM

JohnnieCanuck, if Cowcakes was actually able to bring the church down and make sure every single person who molested or aided in covering it up were to land in a cell with Hugo Hugecock, then it would be revenge. As that's not likely to happen, I don't think Cowcakes needs prissy lectures.

Also, given the church's history in abominable acts, you know, burning people, hanging people, torture on a world wide scale, flaying people alive, imprisoning people, giving aid and comfort to monsters, perpetrating lies which kill (AIDS, condoms, etc.), generation after generation after generation of rape, etc., it's a little hard to say exactly what proper justice would be. Given the situation, I don't think a bit of verbal hyperbole is hard to understand.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/x1CsKko.p.keyee5Rk.DLZd7ts9OdS.ilqZgGw--#2a28e | March 18, 2010 2:56 AM

“consecratarum specierum” Holy Spiced Rum?

Posted by: MadScientist | March 18, 2010 3:23 AM

Ah, the flatulence of the opulent - such a sweet smell to some.

Posted by: Cowcakes | March 18, 2010 5:47 AM

Cowcakes, that fantasy of yours is not justice, it's revenge.

And an interesting one at that given that under biblical laws of an eye for an eye it is appropriate.

However I have evolved past the scrawled ramblings of superstitious herdsmen in a 2,000 year old book and would settle for the public exposure and ridicule, trial and imprisonment of these monsters along with the seizure and confiscation of all monies and assets of the institution that encourage and sheltered them. These assets could then be handed to an accountable organisation to compensate and care for the victims.

Call me a sickfuck if you must but the thought of a paedophile priest receiving the unwanted attentions of Hugo has a certain appeal. ;-)

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | March 18, 2010 6:40 AM

But remember, Cowcakes, only metaphorically! :)

The trouble with raping the rapists and torturing the torturers is that it has no logical end. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as the T-shirt says.

Posted by: Cowcakes | March 18, 2010 7:28 AM

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as the T-shirt says.

I want that T-Shirt Cath.

Posted by: The Tim Channel | March 18, 2010 7:33 AM

I saw that yesterday. Excellent stuff.
Enjoy.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 18, 2010 7:59 AM

Not sure why I posted that here.

Sorry.

Posted by: SEF | March 18, 2010 8:08 AM

The condoning of religious evil continues:

Grauniad
Telegraph
Times

There can't be many organisations less well suited than Catholics to the task of deciding who gets custody of children.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 18, 2010 8:26 AM

This is the one which characterises homosexual inclination as an “intrinsic moral evil” and all homosexuals as “objectively disordered”

Don't forget that Bennie and the Kid Fuckers also consider the adoption of children by gay people an act of violence against the child.

Posted by: MosesZD | March 18, 2010 10:27 AM

Ok. Boy takes cracker back to friend to show him fancy cracker. He's an immoral heretic that should be expelled from school, thrown in jail, if not killed, and has probably committed a sin against the Holy Ghost which cannot be forgiven and he is doomed to burn in hell for all eternity for his sins by his loving God...

Notable atheist Internet blogger pushes nail through a cracker. He must be verbally attacked, physically threatened, thrown in jail (for receiving stolen religious icons) and lose his job (and possibly all of his worldly possessions). He will, of course, burn in hell for all eternity as punishment for his "sins" by his "loving" God...

The Catholic Church, that gives out these crackers, hides scores, maybe hundreds, of child raping priests who have made thousands upon thousands of victims. The Pope, leader of this church, is directly involved in the cover-up of these horrible crimes.

The Church and the Pope are defended as forces of "good" in the world...

And I didn't have to pick crackers. I could pick charitable works. The Vatican is worth billions and billions and billions... They make billions each year. Virtually none of it ever goes to making the world a better place...

I could pick medicine and their lies about AIDS. I could talk about the scam of Mother Teresa and her six-bed hospital of hell...

How anyone with two functioning brain cells could ever support the Catholic Church is beyond me...

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | March 18, 2010 10:56 AM

@melinda.a.kelly (33):

Now I have Johnny Depp in my head: "Where has all the rum gone?

Is there any better place to have Johnny Depp? I'm a straight man and I think he's sexy.

Posted by: CharmedQuark | March 18, 2010 11:44 AM

After watching Hitchens debate countless theologians and apologists - it is understandable why he would need to drink to make it through such mind numbing debates.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | March 18, 2010 11:56 AM

@Poor Wandering One (51):

I think it's 5'o clock in Europe somewhere.

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | March 18, 2010 1:56 PM

It would perhaps be fair to say that the Middle Ages were the struggle between the Catholic Church and the secular authorities to see who would come out on top. Most of the time, the Church won.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 18, 2010 2:35 PM

OT, except for the theme of religious atrocity:

12-y.o. girl sacrifices 4-7y.o. boy to "some deity".

Posted by: Sioux Laris | March 18, 2010 6:42 PM

You have to admit, the Catholic Church could have NO BETTER face to represent what it is that Pope Ratzinger.

Even his feckin' NAME, fer Zeus' sake!

And I thought JPII was despicable (and I was right, but,... man! "Ratty" takes the bum-cake!!!!)

Posted by: agenoria | March 19, 2010 11:42 AM

In The Independent today:

Johann Hari: The Pope, the Prophet, and the religious support for evil

"The fact you believe an invisible supernatural being approves of – or even commands – your behaviour doesn't mean it deserves more respect, or sensitive handling. It means it deserves less. If you base your behaviour on such a preposterous fantasy, you should expect to be checked by criticism and mockery. You need it."

Posted by: John Morales | March 20, 2010 10:07 PM

Was just reading the local news:
Victims disappointed by Pope abuse letter.

She¹ said the Pope's letter focused too narrowly on lower-rank Irish priests without recognising the responsibility of the Vatican and senior Irish clerics for protecting offenders and dealing with victims.
"There is nothing in this letter to suggest that any new vision of leadership in the Catholic church exists," she said.
The letter also does not refer to the resignation of the head of the church in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, which victims groups have demanded, she said.

--

¹ Maeve Lewis, executive director of victims group One in Four.