Pharyngula

Posted by: glenister_m | March 15, 2010 2:28 AM

"it was underlined that he was not to hear confessions and that was very important."

Of all the skewed perspectives on assigning level of importance... What #1 no confessions, #2 safeguard the church's reputation, and #3 keep victims silent??? Or do I have 1 & 2 backward?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | March 15, 2010 2:32 AM

Oh, PZ, you are proving Kw*k's point yet again.

PZ Myers wants us all to regard the “faith” of New Atheism to be morally superior to Roman Catholic Christianity and other Christian faiths. Much to my amazement, he has not yet indulged in attacking other religions which have been guilty of crimes against humanity, like for example, fanatical Sunni Islam. Instead, we have been treated to an incessant series of attacks on Roman Catholic Christianity, as though Myers was subjected to same kind of abuse and neglect shown by the Roman Catholic Church to Frank McCourt and his family, which is so eloquently recounted in “Angela’s Ashes” (And yet, by the end of his life, Frank – and his surviving brothers – had made “peace” with Roman Catholic Christianity, befriending many priests (and even holding a Roman Catholic memorial service for Frank exactly one month after he died last summer). If Myers is truly honest about the moral “superiority” of New Atheism – and not a hypocrite – then he will ban Stu from posting at Pharyngula again.

If PZ had any honor, he would give special credence to Kw*k's mentor and say no more about how the Irish RCC applied pressure to the victims of abuse. Because, as we all know, PZ does not have an unkind word to say about Islam.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 15, 2010 2:34 AM

Cardinal Brady said he had been following church orders and that there were no guidelines for him to follow.

Pathetic and shameful. No guidelines? I am so sick of hearing these despicable men use excuses such as these. Apparently, Brady is so morally bankrupt that he was unable to tell right from wrong. Brady is full of an Augean amount of ordure.

Posted by: Haley | March 15, 2010 2:46 AM

Imagine the reaction if an American politician with a (D) after their name were to admit to doing something like this.

Posted by: Colin | March 15, 2010 2:52 AM

Calling for his resignation might be counter-productive. In the wake of scandal, large organizations often practice ablation PR, shedding lower-level members to protect those higher up, and also so they can claim they have rooted out the wrongdoing.

Posted by: Twopints | March 15, 2010 2:56 AM

Imagine any normal person faced with a meeting where abused teenagers were asked to sign a piece of paper promising not to speak out about the abuse. Alarm bells would ring out in their head saying THIS IS NOT RIGHT, anyone with a moral compass would immediately realise that this is not morally acceptable.

If only the Catholic priests had some sort of guidebook to teach them morality and the difference between right and wrong.

If only such a book existed.

Posted by: Colin | March 15, 2010 3:17 AM

Caine

I fully agree he did wrong and he should be prosecuted. I'm not trying to make excuses for him.

I've given it some more thought.

One of the problems here is that resignation is essentially a civil remedy. It's the same thing that happens all the time with the RCC - child abuse is treated the same as corporate wrongdoing, where the worst penalty is monetary fines, generally.

It's not corporate wrongdoing - it's criminal activity and should be prosecuted. In this case it's at least (arguably) reckless endangerment. Calling for his resignation actually allows the RCC an easy out - they can wash their hands of him and claim they've done their job.

I guess what I'm really saying is resignation is not enough. Especially for someone as close to retirement age as he appears to be in the pictures...

Posted by: DLC | March 15, 2010 3:34 AM

Priests should be held to the same legal standards as the rest of the world, and no attempt to shield them should be tolerated. But of course, the RCC had decided that Priests are never subject to "Temporal law" , even if they're accused of murder.
So a little molestation is no big thing to them.
Move the "fallen" one, pay settlements so long as the victims are silenced by accepting payment and then lie and refuse to cooperate with the police when they come to get the priest.

As for penile-vacuums like Kwok -- Don't go away mad, Kwok. just Go Away.

Posted by: maglione.k | March 15, 2010 4:13 AM

Trying to decide whether Godwin's Law applies...

The Catholic church, by now, should have sold the Vatican to pay punitive damages for its tacit endorsement of sexual abuse alone, not to mention its contribution to the African AIDS epidemic. These stories are starting to make me sick... especially when the apologists write them off and the legislators write pardons.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | March 15, 2010 5:44 AM

For everyone making the "primate" gags, we should note that it's primate as in prime, primacy - and the reason our subgroup of living organisms are called "primates" is because Linnaeus was putting us at the top. The ecclesiastical use pre-dates the biological one.

Cardinal Brady has the moral compass of a concentration camp guard and should be sued for conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | March 15, 2010 6:51 AM

I just don't understand why the lot of them haven't been arrested for abetting crime and obstructing justice.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | March 15, 2010 8:21 AM

PZ

Why? Because he was only following orders.
I've heard that excuse somewhere else, before.

so has Ratzinger

Posted by: scooterKPFT | March 15, 2010 8:32 AM

#25

no, but there's plenty more where that come from

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | March 15, 2010 8:45 AM

Who is Stu?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | March 15, 2010 8:52 AM

Rey Fox:

Who is Stu?

Stu is a valiant Pharyngulite who has been braving the herd of pearl clutchers over at the intersuction.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | March 15, 2010 9:02 AM

On a somewhat selfish tack, I hate the feelings these priests engender in me. I am not violent person, but when I heard this story I felt a desire to do serious harm to the Archbishop.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | March 15, 2010 10:24 AM

"My job is to send the priests up...where they go down is none of my concern."

Posted by: alysonmiers | March 15, 2010 11:09 AM

By this point, shall we just assume that any Catholic cleric we meet is involved in covering up sexual abuse, until he demonstrates otherwise? Men like O'Doyle and Wall from Deliver Us From Evil are the troublemakers, not the mainstream.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | March 15, 2010 11:24 AM

By this point, shall we just assume that any Catholic cleric we meet is involved in covering up sexual abuse, until he demonstrates otherwise? Men like O'Doyle and Wall from Deliver Us From Evil are the troublemakers, not the mainstream.

I think at the very least no priest should be left unchaperoned with a minor.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/Z9ftauMkvZ9rqhkQvvcKJNNnZ81EZ2RSsFx8#621f2 | March 15, 2010 11:29 AM

The more I hear about the church cover-ups, the more i think the US should go after them using the RICO statutes. Of course it will never happen.

Cthulhu's minion

Posted by: jbrusselback | March 15, 2010 12:05 PM

I was just following orders

Posted by: Colin | March 15, 2010 12:35 PM

@40 : RICO would be an interesting and somewhat more comprehensive approach, but sadly, child abuse doesn't appear to be on the list of triggering crimes.

One could possibly argue extortion (pay/pray or go to hell), but, yeah, I don't see that happening.

Pity.

Posted by: paplantings | March 15, 2010 12:39 PM

Steve @ 39

They don't get eternal punishment because they play the "Get out of Hell Card" by going to confession where one of their fellow RCC priests pronounces that all is forgiven if they say a rosary because jebus died for their sins.

Posted by: Colin | March 15, 2010 12:42 PM

Ooh, my badly-researched mistake.

RICO has been used already for prosecution of RCC cover-ups of child abuse (at least, according to Wikipedia). Those concerned were cleared of the charges, though.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | March 15, 2010 12:44 PM

I was reading on RTE (Irish equivalent of the BBC) that an "expert" in cardinal law said there was no requirement for Brady to inform the police.

What ever happened to the acting like a responsible member of society ? Does being a priest somehow exempt one from that ?

Posted by: alysonmiers | March 15, 2010 12:49 PM

Don't these people believe in their own bullshit about eternal punishment? They sure act as if they're only concerned about this world.

No, see, they confess their sins and put their faith in Jebus, so there's nothing to worry about. It's just us heathens who sleep until noon on Sundays and have sex with people our own age who need to fear for our souls.

Posted by: Sanction, Inherent Antonym | March 15, 2010 12:54 PM

Reading the article and the comments here I have to ask, why can't rape-priests and their accessories be arrested?

Do they have diplomatic immunity for being agents of a foreign government (the Vatican See)? Or is this some quiet "gentlemen's" agreement between the Catholic Church and local governments that priests and bishops and such won't be arrested, like anyone else would for such crimes, out of obscene deference to one particular religion?

I can't speak to Ireland, but the overwhelming majority of priests in the US have no legal shield from prosecution for child abuse.

You might be thinking of diplomatic immunity from prosecution under the laws of the host nation. I imagine that some priests are official diplomats in the US, but merely having the status as a priest in the RCC affords no immunity from prosecution whatsoever in the US.

Posted by: smartbrainus | March 15, 2010 1:05 PM

It's sad, yet somehow poetic that your back-to-back posts on Ireland can be so different in emotion.

Best of times, worst of times indeed.

Then again, on the positive side, the Priest scandal has hit the Vatican. Even Andrew Sullivan is seeing patterns of Catholicism's death-throes, which grow worse the longer Ratzinger's in power.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 15, 2010 1:11 PM

This whole scandal is widening across Europe, and a very big fish indeed is trapped in the net:

"The Pope was drawn directly into the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal last night as news emerged of his part in a decision to send a paedophile priest for therapy. The cleric went on to reoffend and was convicted of child abuse but continues to work as a priest in Upper Bavaria..."
-- Timesonline

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | March 15, 2010 1:25 PM

AnthonyK,

I like your comment, but could I ask you to not say twat ? Like you, I live in the UK, and I know it has no sexual connotations here anymore. It is just an emphatic way of saying idiot, with the advantage of rhyming with prat. However in the US it still retains strong sexual connotations and is used in a derogatory manner aimed at women.

I used to use the the word here as well, but Carlie and others made me re-think that. It was causing offence when I intend none. It is one think to insult someone on purpose, but another to do so without meaning to.

I do like you point about saying you are not going to resign as said here in the UK. If Brady were in the UK he would be gone by Friday.

Posted by: AnthonyK | March 15, 2010 1:43 PM

Yyeah, ok, no more twat, but...ok, no buts. And yet - well just go to Viz for details.
Then again, why not?
Kwok it,but really, why not?

Posted by: backwardsbuddhist | March 15, 2010 1:59 PM

It is definitely not a "re - signing" matter, those boys went through enough the first time:)
This is a matter that is long past due for resolution, not resignation. The use of the term just shows how devious the language can be. Is it a resignation as a solution, is it resignation they feel at their unassailable Pontifical position, or is it resignation the victims feel after years of abuse and neglect and spiritual blackmail? Is there anyone who doubts that excommunication was used as a lever?

It is time for confession, pure, honest and complete - that too is a Catholic sacrament. Never heard of resignation as sacred in my RC years ending at age 12, 50 years ago.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | March 15, 2010 3:42 PM

In related stories:

Pope allows pedophile priest to continue with ministry
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7060406.ece

Scientologists try to block film
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/scientologists-try-block-german-film

Posted by: SpriteSuzi | March 15, 2010 4:08 PM

Matt re: #60
Well said. Thank you!

Posted by: Paul | March 15, 2010 4:21 PM

@67

Thanks for that. I'm guessing Kome is American? It shames me that here rape apologetics are alive and well with the constant gloating about how people will "learn what rape is like" in prison. Even otherwise liberal people can go for that sort of thing (and living in a conservative area, I miss even those liberals). The problem is so widespread, I have no idea how to even begin making inroads towards curbing that depravity.

Posted by: Paul | March 15, 2010 4:39 PM

@71

Fair enough. I am perhaps oversensitive to "ha ha, prison rape" being thrown around on the interwebs as often as it is. Reading again, it probably was a Type 1 Error. But torture is no more acceptable than rape.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | March 15, 2010 4:48 PM

Paul,

I understand. Prison rape is something I never really thought about until reading comments here chastising others for joking about it. That made me think about it and now I, too, am bothered every time I hear somebody joke about it. That's what I like about this place - always challenging me to think about things I hadn't already. Sometimes it can be painful and embarrassing, but it's worth it.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/K2PNji0at.txAjzTShOlxwLuFcVVFwbnng--#bd813 | March 15, 2010 5:15 PM

American evangelicals told Ugandans that gays acted like Catholic priests, and the Ugandans enacted a death penalty.

Posted by: Kome | March 15, 2010 10:52 PM

#67
"No, it isn't. Rape and torture are evil. Enabling rape or torture is evil. Even if the victim is a rapist and torturer."

I'm not arguing that it isn't evil, I'm merely suggesting that it might be effective as a form of punishment against someone who was perfectly willing to hide people who committed such evil. Maybe if he personally understands what it's like to experience such exploitation, manipulation, and contempt, he'd be less willing in the future to protect perpetrators of it.

Posted by: Ragutis | March 16, 2010 2:00 AM

Posted by: sqlrob Author Profile Page | March 15, 2010 4:43 PM

It is just an emphatic way of saying idiot, with the advantage of rhyming with prat.

How the heck do you say each? They're nowhere near rhyming, at least the way this USian says each. Prat rhymes with slat for me.

Over there, it rhymes with prat and slat. And, as mentioned, it seems to have almost completely lost its connotation with gender specific body parts and is just another way to call someone an idiot/moron/imbecile/dumbass/etc.

Posted by: Paul | March 16, 2010 11:58 AM

I'm not arguing that it isn't evil, I'm merely suggesting that it might be effective as a form of punishment against someone who was perfectly willing to hide people who committed such evil. Maybe if he personally understands what it's like to experience such exploitation, manipulation, and contempt, he'd be less willing in the future to protect perpetrators of it.

If you're already assuming that evil can be justified, why not murder the bastard? It's even less cruel and unusual, and he'd be even less likely to protect perpetrators in the future.

Posted by: Paul | March 16, 2010 2:52 PM

Can't learn from your mistakes if you're dead.

And what are you thinking they'll "learn" in being tortured? That if you do bad things, you might be tortured? If the torturing doesn't lead him to "personally understands what it's like to experience such exploitation, manipulation, and contempt", what's the next step? More torture? Ludovico?

I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue this. It doesn't matter if you try to frame it as a "remedy" or a "lesson", the government has no business torturing anyone. I would defend the death penalty before I would defend government-sanctioned punitive torture. If you're willing to countenance being a monster to fight monsters, at least the former offers assurance that they will not repeat their crimes.

Posted by: Kome | March 17, 2010 12:48 PM

"And what are you thinking they'll "learn" in being tortured?"

I would think part of the reason we get punished is to teach us things like "don't do that again." Whether it's a detention slip or a belt to the butt or a lengthy prison term, punishment serves to modify behavior by attempting to decrease the expression of undesirable behavior. The death penalty undercuts that by preventing the ability to learn the lesson. Just make sure the punishment fits the crime.

For whatever reason, the majority of us (I'm assuming) have managed to stay out of jail. While it could just mean a lot of us are really good at hiding the evidence, I'd suggest it's more likely that the majority of us just don't commit those kinds of crimes. These people are accused of doing so. Give 'em a fair trial and if they're convicted... oh well. They probably shouldn't have engaged in institutionalized child rape and a rather large conspiracy to cover it up.

"I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue this. It doesn't matter if you try to frame it as a "remedy" or a "lesson", the government has no business torturing anyone. I would defend the death penalty before I would defend government-sanctioned punitive torture. If you're willing to countenance being a monster to fight monsters, at least the former offers assurance that they will not repeat their crimes."

Well, if you read how I worded my solution, the government isn't actively doing anything aside from trying and (in theory, should the evidence warrant it) convicting the suspect(s). They're just passively letting others do it and then not intervening.

---

"Wait

WHAT?"

For non-violent offenders, my attitude towards punishment and the judicial system is a lot more in line with y'alls (I imagine). In the cases of violent and heinous offenders, especially repeat offenders (and the rampant child rape by clergy and massive protection of child rapists on the part of the RCC counts), my ability to care about perpetrators goes out the window. They've shown they simply just don't care about other people and the rules of society. To wit: the pope has issued a memo to the church staff that essentially says, in the eyes of the church, raping a child is a lesser crime than turning in a clergyman who has raped a child. Assuming a fair trial and a conviction, putting them through what they put other people through doesn't strike me as all that monstrous.

Sure, prisoners still have rights. But, then again, they also had a right not to commit those crimes in the first place. They chose to wave that right, at the expense of innocent people.