We now have a smoking gun implicating Pope Ratzi in the cover-up of child abuse by priests.
Pope Benedict XVI has become embroiled in new revelations over child sexual abuse, over a letter he is said to have signed in 1985 before becoming pontiff.
Associated Press said it had obtained the letter, signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, resisting the defrocking of offending US priest Stephen Kiesle.
Cardinal Ratzinger said the "good of the universal Church" needed to be considered in defrocking, AP reported.
The good of the innocent seems to be much, much lower in the church's priorities.
Now what will happen, though?
I predict…absolutely nothing. The church will hunker down and change nothing, the flock will make excuses for the abuses as they've always done, and the story will repeat year after year. We just have to hope that the scandals will erode church membership further, and that secular authorities will be quicker to protect the kids.
But I'll just keep on dreaming of the Pope making a visit to some secular country, getting arrested, and being forced to do a perp walk in front of broadcast cameras. It's not going to happen, but it would be so sweet.
- Log in to post comments
Germans are so good at smashing a bunch of words together, there has to be a good one for pope nazinger. Something like kidfuckerprotector or childrapistenabler or providerofkiddieasstopriests.
Oh, yes it would. I'd dearly like to see that nasty, criminal excuse for a human being called to account for all the harm he has done, covered up and aided and abetted. Right now, I'd settle for him being put into a position (like locked up) where he could not continue in his criminal activities.
Hey, the Pope is infallible and has a direct communication to God. So clearly God is saying that his representatives should continue the buggering of children. Since God is the source of morality we must conclude that only true Christians bugger little boys.
That's why I'm going to hell, a lack of buggery.
heres a debate on bbc news, with johann hari of the independent calling for the pope to be arrested! :D
http://camelswithhammers.com/2010/04/08/arrest-the-pope/
First, they said he didn't read all the memos. Now, they'd say he didn't read all the letters signed by him.
What kind of cheap cardinal was that, then?
I agree that maybe this will erode the church's membership, but sadly many may end up at fundie churches.
Many of the nondenominational churches here in NC really attract former Catholics. They want something completely different than the Catholic church and these new style fundie churches with their contemporary christianist music and sporty gyms are different.
These are the churches that claim to create True Xians and end up developing those anti intellectual/science members. My sister is at one and has been so brainwashed by this hugely popular church that we can hardly talk about anything much any more. The reason they chose this type of church was because her husband (former Catholic) wanted to find something that didn't remind him of the church of his youth. IMO this decision was one of the things that ruined their marriage because she got so into the church my brother in law's behaviour was said to be "ungodly". I think he was too much of a free thinker than they liked. She divorced him (which was eventually OK because he was ungodly).
Anyway, people who leave the church because they are upset or angry and not for truly rational reasons, will eventually go somewhere else. I doubt many will really learn to think for themselves, they'll just reject one "truth" for another.
You know, the fundie churches would love to get rid of the catholic church as much as we would, since the fundies don't think catholics are true xians anyway.
How drool. Seems I've heard that somewhere before. A variation on some Courtier's Reply perhaps? The Poop, despite all of his brocades, is buck nekked.
It's definitely not going to happen in the U.S. Pope Ratzi requested, and received, immunity from prosecution for child molestation from the Bush Justice department in 2005:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169909,00.html
The hypocrisy of the present Bishop of Rome* goes way back. About twenty years ago I knew a young man who had been kicked out of a Franciscan monastery in Mexico because he was gay. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger had the ear of the Bishop of Rome and engineered this clearing-out of the monasteries of gay men ... for who knows what reason. Catholic priests had counseled young gay men to become monks or priests. Though gay, they could still serve God—at least until the Bishop of Rome sayd they could not.
Whatever your opinions on the value of monasteries to the greater society, it is sanctimonious, hypocritical, and criminal of the Catholic Church to evict men who have pledged chastity—toss them out on the street to try to get jobs as waiters—and protect priests who molest children.
(My friend worked as a waiter and was able to afford a small apartment. His possessions were a mattress, a lamp, some books, and some clothes. I hope he found fulfillment after the way he was mistreated.)
* A friend of mine joined the Greek Orthodox church and thereafter, whenever anyone mentioned the Pope, he would say, "You must mean the Bishop of Rome." Bishop of Rome is his correct title, especially for anyone who does not recognize his special status as God's representative on Earth.
Like I said when I linked this in the Endless Thread, any Catholic that tithes from now on is morally fucking complicit in the whole shebang. At the end of the article linked is this little tidbit:
Perhaps atheists should band together and create our own country. Then we invite the Pope. Then we arrest him.
Damn, you're right Lynn, but at least a small proportion of them will probably leave religion all together (you know, the ones who were only paying lip service anyways).
Looks like they have the pope on the ropes...
Sorry.. couldn't help it.
Eine Kindfickerschutzeinrichtung, Ein Kindfrauenschänderauslöser, oder ein Anbieter von das Gesäß des Kind.
"...but at least a small proportion of them will probably leave religion all together (you know, the ones who were only paying lip service anyways)."
I'm guessing that it will be a fairly healthy percentage; anyone becoming disillusioned with the nastiness that has been the Vatican for lo these many centuries isn't likely to be taken in by the snake handlers and polyglots.
On the whole "context" dodge: There is no amount of "context" that's going to help any. More sugar coating that turd will not turn it into a donut.
Besides, don't we already know the context? Clearly written statements placing "the good of the universal church" on par with
"that of the petitioner [buggered child]" and the even more incriminating "this court, [which] is accustomed to proceed keeping the common good especially before its eyes" show where Ratzi's priorities lay. If there exists additional letters that somehow clarify away the failure to see that turning over a child-rapist to the police is the only good in that situation - common, uncommon, rare, or otherwise - I'd like to read them.
Gyeong:
Perfect. Thank you!
Dunno if it's intentional, but it's felicitous and I like it!
Well, PZ, you did say that:
The church will hunker down and change nothing, the flock will make excuses for the abuses as they've always done, and the story will repeat year after year.
Looks like you were right.
By the way, I do wish we could be brave enough to stop using such dishonest language. A tiny percentage of the abuse was pedophiliac in nature, the vast majority being the homosexual rape of adolescent boys by Gay men.
And, when someone tries to call that guy out on it, this is the reply:
As if from above, my point is made. Bless you and thank you. Someone who has no idea what they are talking about spewing nonsense and hatred. The so-called “document” from the Pope – it’s a Latin letter actually – when he was a cardinal (pre-pope’s, not pre-popes) proves nothing at all. You haven’t read it just as you have not read the Times or the links I gave. Ignorance, bigotry and, I think, people screaming so loud that one wonders if they are hiding their own guilty feelings. Interesting. No more comments from me – too busy and I like to sit back and watch the reaction.
But but but....secular conspiracies! And, and...just like anti-semitism (hitler!!!)...and religious persecution...and, er. Yeah.
/ wild-eyed apologist nonsense
I don't know what's sadder and more infuriating. Their refusal to acknowledge the problem, or the intentional cover-up, or their foisting it off on gays...or their complete, sociopathic indifference to the flesh and blood children who were hurt, systematically, for decades, by their actions.
I'll go with all of the above.
It's going to be tough to ignore the papal trail Ratzi's left behind here.
I tried...
I think you're wrong on this. I predict that Bill Donohue will show up to yell and hurl accusations at anyone who uses this to criticize the Pope. I'm just surprised it hasn't happened yet.
Clearly this is just another example of hate-speech/slander by liberals/atheists/secularists/homosexuals fabrications to humiliate/oppress/destroy the catholics/pope/church who have clearly never done anything but good for the world. In fact, it's probably those liberals/atheists/secularists/homosexuals who are at fault for this. If it weren't for the liberalization/secularization of society, the poor father wouldn't have been led astray!!! Don't blame the church/pope/priest, blame the gays/heathens/socialists!
This was on the nooz when I walked through the room before dinner. Mother-in-Law, a staunch catlick, was watching (she lives with us). The talk was all about the scandal, and I blurted out "Well, that's what you get for not taking care of it then, you're going to be in trouble!". Comment not appreciated, but DAMN, get real, catlicks! Teh popez is a criminal! That religion stuff has fogged the peep's eyes. Time to drag off the wool.
The Mighty Hankini predicts:
Insiders at the Vatican will kill the Pope, making it look like a heart attack. The Catholic Church will then ride a wave of sympathy as True Believers accuse church critics of hounding him to death. That will give them the Moral High Ground (TM) which will enable them to howl with persecuted indignation every time the issue comes up.
Anyway, if Pope Ratzi dies in the next few weeks, you heard it here first.
Them's my words and I'm stickin' to 'em! Freud strikes again, but yeah, it works.
BTW: Do you know what the banjo player got on his SAT test?
I believe that these recent events - the constant incoming of reports and evidence of Rat and Co's deliberate ignoring of and covering-up of abusive priests, lay brothers, monks, nuns and them - has started a slow but inexorable death of the Vatican.
I fervently hope so, anyway.
Oh crap. By "and them" I didn't mean Popey and pals themselves (not that I'd be a bit surprised, mind). It was meant in the colloquial Brit sense of "and the rest of these groups//types."
Probably won't make a huge amount of difference. Religions do not have to have any intersection with the real world. Just look at the Xenu the Galactic overlord or the Book of Mormon.
The RCC has lost attendance and money from members lately. The few statistics I've seen weren't all that many though. One of my Catholic relatives is now a lay officer in a Protestant church. I don't care enough any more to even ask him why.
Long term the RCC could be in trouble in the first world though. This organization is falling apart and unable to reform itself. It has fossilized in place.
1. The members pay no attention to the priests. The US Catholic birth rate is identical to the national average. There isn't even any biblical justification for their stupid rule, it was something a Pope made up a few hundred years ago.
2. The leadership from the Pope down is incompetent and stupid. Few want to be a life long virgin anymore, forgo significant others, and/or a family and children. Their recruiting pool is men who are often a bit strange or worse and none too bright. The cure is obvious, scrap the single males only rule. There is no bible justification for this either and most churches gave it up long ago. Even the other Catholic church, Greek Orthodox has married clergy.
Being fossilized and unable to reform itself doesn't profile as looking all that good for their future.
This is just malicious gossip. That's the Vatican's latest spin on enabling child rapists.
Re Lynn's comment @6 about disillusioned RC's ending up with Prod fundies: I'm absolutely no expert on ecumenical possibilities but I can't really see that happening on any appreciable scale in the European Catholic countries.
Partly because of the still-strong ties between the churches and various political/nationalist causes (eg N.Ireland) but also, for example, because of the role the Catholic church plays in the communities, especially outside of cities, in nations and regions which are predominantly Catholic.
The influence is not what it was but its still appreciable - not to mention the fact that Protestant churches are practically non-existant in large swathes of these places, so its not as if there is a local alternative for them to investigate.
I don't know how the doctrinal differences would play out (the Marian emphasis, for one) but culturally and
practically, the effect is going to be an interesting one, however it plays out.
Problem is, Paul, the pope is also a head of state, and thus protected from arrest and prosecution outside his own jurisdiction.
If these perpetrators were laymen, they would be rotting in prison by now.
--------------------------------------
Your wish might become true: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100404/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_pope
"Kinderfickerschutzorganization" would be the RCC itself. Ratzinger would then be the "Kinderfickerschutzorganizationsführer" ;-)
...or, if you prefer it without the Godwin, "Kinderfickerschutzorganizationsleiter"
This whole mess has gone beyond infuriating to making me apoplectic with rage and having to come down the same way John Stuart does - pictures of kittens, or baby sea otters, or baby sea otters playing with kittens...
People in your organization commit a crime.
Fess up or cover up?
Okay now you're for it: you're an accomplice.
Move the perpetrator, threaten the victims, or come clean and admit wrongdoing after the fact?
Okay, now you're REALLY for it: people have found out, and now it threatens to get worse.
Admit to wrongdoing well after the fact and offer reparations, or threaten and cajole and pay off the victims and move the perpetrator AGAIN?
Okay, well, I tried to warn you, but...now your organization is being sued, your perpetrator is in jail and facing trial - no, convicted...
Throw yourself on the mercy of the populace for egregious wrongdoing and step down, or trivialize it?
Oh dear. You appear to have turned this cycle into a cottage industry, protecting and encouraging more pedophiles than NAMBLA with a million times the resources.
Jail yourself out of shame, demanding permanent incarceration and the dismantling of your organization, or accuse the victims?
Oh, I give up.
Anyone else following this bankrupt course would be demonized as a mafia-style front for endemic child sex trafficking, and promptly destroyed by whatever bureaucratic means available while everyone was jailed from the president to the mailroom clerk.
I just know that in The Netherlands people are fed up. They're leaving the church by the hundreds.
They don't go to other churches, they just leave. Something a lot of them figure they should have done a long time ago, as they weren't going anyway.
Lots of people have been baptised in their youth, but never did anything with their faith. Those are the people who are now remembered that they're still part of a church and leave.
Problem is, Paul, the pope is also a head of state, and thus protected from arrest and prosecution outside his own jurisdiction.
That immunity didn't work for Milosevic, Hussein, Hitler, etc.
Ratzinger is the head of an international criminal conspiracy that has aided and abetted the rape of children, endangered thousands of children, and obstructed justice in multiple jurisdictions. He is now personally implicated in that conspiracy.
With any luck and some basic human decency arrayed against him, he won't be able to leave his house-city ever again.
There is actually more, more recent, of such dirty coverups.
In 2001 Cardinal Ratzinger, who was then leader of the vatican office on abuse cases, sent out a letter to all bishops to keep quiet about such cases, were the internal evidence not overwhelming.
Here is a news source. Sorry it's in danish, use google translate...
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2010/04/09/221310.htm
No country is likely to have the spine to arrest the pope, or to declare that they no longer recognise the Vatican as a sovereign state. But if we do our duty and ensure that there are angry demonstrations wherever the pope appears, that'll be hard to ignore.
This is a misunderstanding.
Firstly, there are two types of state immunity in international law: immunity ratione personae, and immunity ratione materiae. The relevant type here is immunity ratione personae, which means that currently serving heads of state (as well as certain other high officials, such as heads of government and cabinet ministers) are completely immune from the jurisdiction, both criminal and civil, of the courts of foreign countries. This immunity applies both to their official acts and their private acts. So you cannot, in any circumstances, prosecute a serving head of state (or senior government minister) in the courts of a foreign country. This was confirmed, inter alia, by the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Arrest Warrant case. The good news is that this immunity applies only to serving, not former, heads of state: so General Pinochet, for example, was prosecuted in Spain many years after he ceased to be head of state of Chile.
Your post disregards the fact that Milosevic and Goering (not Hitler, as he had already committed suicide) were both tried not by national courts, but by special international tribunals (respectively, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the Nuremberg Tribunal). The rules on state immunity are designed to stop one state interfering in the affairs of another, and so they do not apply to international tribunals. But international tribunals can only prosecute a very small number of "international crimes" which are punishable directly under international law: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and (in some circumstances) the crime of aggression. They have absolutely no jurisdiction over child molestation or the covering-up thereof, which is a crime under national, not international, law. So although the International Criminal Court, or an ad hoc tribunal, would theoretically be able to exercise jurisdiction over the Pope, he has committed no crime which falls within their jurisdiction.
As for Saddam, he was tried by an Iraqi court. Heads of state are not immune from the jurisdiction of their own country's courts - and, in any case, he was a former head of state and so did not have personal immunity.
It all comes down to: The RCC is too big to fall. No matter what scandals come to light, it is just too big to collapse, there will be too many keeping it propped up saying the problems are just a small minority of the whole.
Well, no - seeing as how both acts would be totally illegal under international law.
Geoffrey Robertson, QC, writes that it is not so clear that Benedict is a head of state.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/02/pope…
echidna: Robertson (who is a well-known human rights lawyer, and one for whom I have plenty of admiration) is disregarding the fact that, whether or not one recognises the Vatican City as a state (which, like it or not, most countries do), the Holy See is a sui generis entity with special privileges under international law. This was so even when, between 1870 and 1929, it did not control any territory.
Other than that, I agree with his article. The Pope, assuming that he is a head of state, is immune from the jurisdiction of the British courts. But he is not immune from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, before which he could, in theory, be prosecuted. Robertson seems to think - with some justification - that the child molestation could be considered a crime against humanity. He says:
The definition of "crimes against humanity", in the Rome Statute, says the following:
So, in principle, mass rape and sexual abuse can be a crime against humanity. However, it goes on to say:
I suppose you could characterise the Vatican's policy of covering up child abuse as a "State or organizational policy" to allow child abuse to continue. And though the victims of abuse were scattered around the world, they were certainly civilian, and they might well be said to constitute a "civilian population".
So yes, I'll grant that there is an arguable legal case for prosecuting the Pope before the ICC. It's unlikely to happen, though.
(My posts on this thread don't count towards my self-imposed ten-post limit, since they are about international law, which is, coincidentally, one of the subjects on which I have an exam coming up. So this discussion counts as studying.)
cheater ;-)
Something Robertson is wrong about:
But recognition of states in the international sphere doesn't work like that. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which has been accepted by the ICJ as representative of customary international law, provides that a state must have (a) a defined territory, (b) a permanent population, (c) a government, and (d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The Vatican meets these criteria.
It's true that states cannot be created from whole cloth by the unilateral declaration of another state - for example, the "bantustans" created by apartheid South Africa were held to be non-states by the ICJ. And a state which meets the basic criteria for statehood, but was created in violation of the principle of self-determination, is also a non-states - as with Southern Rhodesia, for instance, when the white-supremacist Ian Smith government unilaterally declared independence from Britain, against the will of the majority black population. But this does not apply to the Vatican - which, as Robertson acknowledges, had a tradition of statehood before 1870. The Holy See had continued to have legal personality in international law between 1870 and 1929, despite having no territory. There was therefore already an international entity, the Holy See, which had a capacity to conclude an international agreement with Italy over the status of the Vatican. (There is one other such entity that exists today, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which formerly controlled the island of Malta but no longer has any territory: yet it is still an international legal entity and can enter into treaties.)
The Vatican has observer status at the UN. It is recognised and treated by the international community as a state. It is unequivocally a state, according to all the criteria accepted by international legal scholars. And in any case, if this were to be challenged in a British court with the argument that the State Immunity Act 1978 should not be applied to the Vatican, the court will, following past precedent, treat as conclusive the fact that Britain recognises the Vatican as a state, and will therefore hold that the Act applies so as to give the Pope full immunity.
Walton:
Source referencing RSICC/C, Vol.
1, p. 360
Emphasis added.
Run through Generalissimo Google's translate, that is:
Which is then made intelligible:
The emboldened part seems about right.
Azkyroth: Yes, as I said, there is an arguable case for prosecuting the Pope before the ICC. Some of the countries in which the offences were committed are parties to the Rome Statute, so the ICC would, in principle, have jurisdiction. It is, however, extremely unlikely that the Pope would ever be prosecuted before the ICC. And since he does have immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign states, no state would be able to arrest or detain him so as to compel him to appear in the Hague.
Walton wrote:
Really? Withdrawing recognition is a crime under international law? How does that work wrt annexations or, say, transferance of recognition as from the ROC to the PRC?
But anyway, I doubt respect for int'l law is high on the list of reasons nobody is withdrawing recognition from the Vatican. There's plenty of countries that's shown a willingness to ignore int'l law when it suits them.
It's not a "crime" under international law - as I mentioned earlier, "international crimes" are a very restricted concept. Not everything that is illegal is a crime.
And no, withdrawing recognition is not illegal (sorry my earlier post was unclear on this point). Recognition is a discretionary act on the part of the state. But withdrawing recognition does not entitle you to treat a state as a non-state. The majority of international law scholars see recognition as declaratory, not constitutive, of statehood: in other words, recognition by other states does not in itself make an entity into a state, nor does the withdrawal of recognition make a state into a non-state. This is a confusing and very disputed area of law, however.
It's also worth mentioning, as regards your example, that there is a distinction between recognition of states and recognition of governments. The ROC and PRC are not, in law, separate states; rather, they are two governments that each lay claim to be the legitimate government of the same state. No one doubts that China is a state; they just disagree as to whether the legitimate government of China is the one in Beijing or the one in Taipei.
@Walton: Thank you.
Walton,
Since the Pope is a German citizen, can he be tried in that country ?
@ Walton #44:
The US is recently guilty of at least (e) and (f) and is also not being prosecuted though.
The criminality of the Catholic church and its pope goes beyond child abuse anyway (and that itself is not limited to the rape cases!). There's also the not insignificant matter of repeatedly telling lies about condoms and AIDS and hence causing a lot of unnecessary suffering and death in any population foolish enough to believe them. Intentionally helping the spread of a killer disease is surely a crime against humanity - probably under clause (k).
Two points here. Firstly, international criminal responsibility does not attach to states, only to individuals. The ICC and other international criminal tribunals try individuals, not states. A state can certainly commit an illegal act, but it can't commit an international crime. Rather, it would be the state's leaders, and other individuals responsible for ordering the criminal acts, who would be personally liable for the international crimes.
In any case, the United States is not a party to the Statute of Rome - it was signed but never ratified - and so it does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. An American cannot, therefore, be submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICC for a crime committed on American soil. In theory, American citizens could be tried before the ICC for international crimes committed in a foreign country which was a party to the Rome Statute. However, in order to avoid this, Congress passed the "Service-Members' Protection Act" which is designed to ensure that US authorities do not co-operate with the ICC, and take all measures necessary to ensure that US military and governmental officials are not subjected to the ICC's jurisdiction.
No. Although states can sometimes exercise jurisdiction over acts committed by their nationals in foreign countries, the Pope still has complete immunity as a serving foreign head of state.
As I said, though, this would cease to apply if the Pope ceased to be head of state; there is ample precedent for former heads of state being prosecuted in national courts. While he might well still be immune for acts committed while he was Pope, if they were classified as acts of state (which are subject to immunity ratione materiae), he would not have immunity in respect of the acts he committed while he was Archbishop of Munich or Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. So if the Pope were to abdicate, then German prosecutors might well be able to bring criminal proceedings against him.
One more point:
That's a strained interpretation of the Statute, and certainly not one I would want to adopt. Telling lies about condoms and AIDS is an exercise of free speech. I would not want lies - even damaging lies - to constitute an international crime in themselves.
(This isn't to say that speech can never constitute part of an international crime. IIRC, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found that certain Rwandan radio stations were liable for acts of genocide, as they were used to broadcast co-ordinating instructions to facilitate the massacre of victims. But I don't think that can really be extended to this situation.)
I think Joey Rats has done his share of boy fucking so he can't crack down on anyone because they have the pictures.
As an addendum to my reply to SEF:
Consider what we would do, at the national level, if a leader of any other church, with no special legal status, were to do the various things that the Pope has done.
Without the benefit of sovereign immunity, would that leader be prosecuted before national courts for allowing, and deliberately covering up, acts of child abuse? Quite possibly, yes. And such proceedings would be absolutely justified. The church in question might well also be vicariously liable in tort to the victims of abuse, and would have to pay compensation if a civil action was brought agaist it.
But would an ordinary church leader be prosecuted in national courts for telling people that condoms cause AIDS? In the United States, absolutely not. This would be an exercise of free speech protected by the First Amendment - and quite rightly so.
So even if international law permitted the Pope to be brought to justice, I would argue that he should not be criminally liable, whether in national or international law, regarding his statements about condoms. Part of free speech is the right to tell lies, even lies that harm people. If we give the state power to silence liars, then we also give the state power to silence truth - and that's a very dangerous road to go down. And this holds true at the international as much as the national level.
Walton,
is a political argument, not a legal argument.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Geoffrey Robertson's views, or his experience, or his sense of what can and cannot be achieved. He might be pushing the envelope, but he is unlikely to be outright wrong. The prevailing mores are trending toward expecting accountability for actions, so we can expect the law and political acceptability to change in this area.
The way things are going, it is just a matter of time.
That's not a great deal different from the RCC issuing those internal edicts to prevent its staff, parishioners and victims from co-operating with the secular authorities in reporting and prosecuting the rape cases!
But they've gone further - in acting directly against members of groups who were handing out condoms and trying to advise the population on their use. (I should have made that clear earlier and very nearly did but I didn't have the references to hand - and still don't!)
A funny observation from the newspaper today:
Blockquote fail above; the last paragraph is supposed to be part of the quote.
So detrousering is fine, but defrocking is definately OUT ?
Walton #40
Göring wasn't a head of state. He had been designated as Hitler's successor in 1941. Following the Soviet advance on Berlin in April 1945, Göring moved to the south of Germany while Hitler remained in the Führerbunker in Berlin. Because of Hitler’s decision to remain in Berlin, Göring chose to construe the situation as a deliberate abdication of power. He sent Hitler a telegram declaring his succession effective at 2200 on April 23rd.
Hitler was enraged by Göring's telegram. Martin Bormann declared it an attempt to launch a treasonous coup d'état, an argument supported by Josef Goebbels. Hitler denounced Göring and stripped him of power and military rank. Admiral Karl Dönitz was publicly named as Hitler's successor.
A week after Göring's telegram was sent, Hitler committed suicide. Dönitz assumed the office of President (Reichspräsident) of Germany, running the so-called Flensburg government. He held this position for 20 days until the final surrender to the Allies.
So Göring never was head of state or head of government. Incidentally Dönitz was tried at Nuremberg for his actions as a military leader, not for anything he did has Reichspräsident.
not about the law, more about WTF are they thinking?
So the article shows Ratzinger's signature on a document stating that for the sake of the church's reputation a child raping priest should not be defrocked. That would signal a problem, warn people and make the church look bad - so let him keep his dog collar and let him continue to sexually abuse children. That's the better course of action - for the church; the children are collateral damage
and the apologist response:
"He also said Pope Benedict was prepared to meet more victims of abuse to offer them moral support."
I know these people are consummate masters of made up tortured logic but seriously? Really?
This is just typical and what we have all come to expect. However, I believe the (un)holy father is making a visit to the UK later this year. We have a guy here called Peter Tatchell who has a record of public protest and gay rights campaigning. A couple of years ago he tried to make a citizens arrest of Mugabe. Perhaps he'll try something similar with this 'head of state' that seems to approve of the buggering of small boys?
Least surprising headline of the week:
"Vatican defends Pope over new row"
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612787.stm)
{Note to readers: This is the temperate, moderate and pleasant version of what I wanted to write. Fucking brace yourselves.}
What I find {ahem} "interesting" about all of the kerfuffle regarding the RCC procuring kiddies for child rapists, and then covering it all up, is that it is seriously small beer in comparison to the really nasty shit they are pulling.*
The AIDS epidemic in the third world (particularly sub-Saharan Africa where life expectancy is actually going DOWN, amazingly enough) is being exacerbated (if not outright caused) by Catholics pushing their anti condom stance. This is resulting in millions of deaths. By any rational standard this is genocide.
Don't try to split hairs just because priests aren't pulling triggers, wielding the machete or pushing people into gas chambers, this is an ideology that directly kills people. It's not the only such ideology, I'm not singling it out on that basis, but it is the only one with a huge, uber-rich organisation behind it that claims to speak infallibly on such matters, and puts itself beyond question whenever it can.
But, hey, who cares about those people? They're black/foreign, poor and they've been doing that fucking, which as we all know makes it their own fault because fucking is naughty and you absolutely shouldn't do it. Unless a man in a dress tells you you can, of course.**
Oh and to any catholics/apologists/people from the Intersection reading this and being "offended": Tell you what, get Father O'Fucksakid to pull his cock out of his latest victim and get prosecuted by the relevant authorities, then get his missionary colleagues Father McKillsomedarkies and Sister Maria of the Aidsisgodsjudgementonthehorny to stop poisoning the minds of Africans so they think condoms will make the AIDS epidemic worse before we even pretend that anything I've said is wrong. Mmmkay? Mmmkay.
And no, handing out a loaf of bread with your bible and bigotry doesn't compensate for genocide. Sorry. No amount of orphanages and "solace to little old ladies" will ever be able to make up for your stance on contraception and the damages it causes. No hospital named after St Theresa of the Blinkeredbatshitbullshit will ever make up for this. The RCC is responsible for the Holocaust of our times, so forgive me if I come across as mildly unsympathetic.
Louis
*Don't get me wrong here, the procurment of kids for child rapists and then covering up the actions of those child rapists is also serious business. However, I'll take the deaths of a few million people as being a more serious crime than ruining the lives of a few (tens of) thousands. I'm controversial like that.
**If someone cannot understand the sarcasm in this paragraph, then I pity them. And they can fuck themselves before they leap for their high horse. Just to save me the time involved in telling them to fuck themselves later.
Quite coincidentally, I'm sure, Shroud of Turin goes on display for first time in decade.
Grr — I forgot to include the URL, above.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/10/2869405.htm
I am going to keep this very simple.
Perhaps then the point will get through.
There was no "cover up." How could there be?
At the point that Ratzinger became involved, Kiesle had already been convicted and sentenced in California criminal court. He had already completed his sentence. His case was as public as it could be. The civil authorities had already been notified.
It is the fault of the US criminal justice system that he only received probation, on a charge of "lewd behavior". That was the 70s.
It is the fault of the local diocese -- not Ratzinger -- that Kiesle was allowed to work with youth after his probation was up.
The issue before Ratzinger was simply whether to accede to Kiesle's request to remove him from the priesthood.
Ratzinger may have thought that it would be better to keep him in the priesthood where he could be monitored more effectively than if he had been released into civil society.
Ratzinger would have been wrong there, since the local diocese allowed him to work with a youth group after his probation. But note that Kiesle was eventually convicted again for a case of molestation which occurred after he had been defrocked in 1987, so defrocking him was not the solution to the problem in this case.
The shameless disregard for the facts and use of obfuscatory language when dealing with the rubes is just so appalling.
Just read a longer article about it here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100410/ap_on_re_us/us_pope_church_abuse
The actions taken and the excuses made are absolutely disgusting.
..see proof from the Big Guy himself. Apparently only MEN invite this shit into their hearts. Us chicks are immune to the "face of god". I always suspected this.
Suck it atheist blokes. Teh Pope has spoken!!!
Michael:
You are apparently unfamiliar with Crimen sollicitationis, else you would not pose such a rhetorical question.
BoSOM, heh. I picked up on that, too.
Do you not see a problem with the now Pope having such trouble deciding whether a priest convicted of the sexual abuse of children should be allowed to continue being a priest ?
What was there to think about ? How in way could it have been a difficult decision that required time to consider ?
Michael @ 71
Yeah, effectively monitoring child rapists - they're doing it right.
It's the immediately removing them from children, reporting them to the police, handing over evidence, cooperating with prosecutors, and defrocking that they have all wrong.
John Morales @#75:
That is irrelevant. The man's crimes were already a matter of public record. They were beyond being covered up.
I am not unfamiliar with Crimen sollicitationis. There is no evidence that it applied in this case -- there is no evidence that the case involved solicitation in the confessional. There is also no evidence that there was a canonical trial, the results of which could have been kept confidential in accordance with that letter.
As I've already said, there had already been a criminal trial, the proceedings of which were in the public record.
(I suspect you haven't read the Wikipedia article that you linked to concerning Crimen Solliciationis, anyway. It doesn't support your understanding of that document. For example: "These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication."
But in this case the civil authorities had already dealt with the matter.)
The case came before Ratzinger at the CDF because it involved a request by the priest to be laicized. As I said Ratzinger may have viewed this as an attempt by the priest to be let loose in public.
The CDF did not become responsible for abuse cases in general until 2001. At that point Kiesle had already been defrocked and had already committed his post-priestly abuse which eventually earned him 8 well-deserved years in prison.
Michael: The RCC's rules and policies, regarding known or suspected child molestation by priests, is the responsibility of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the entity once known as the Holy Inquisition). Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was, was the Prefect of that Congregation from 1981 until his election as Pope. As such, the fact that there are now large numbers of reported incidents of child abuse from that period, and that in many of the cases the offender was not defrocked and was allowed to continue working with children, is within Cardinal Ratzinger's personal sphere of responsibility. This doesn't exclude the fact that many of the bishops involved are also personally culpable; but it was Ratzinger who was responsible for the system as a whole.
By analogy with secular government: if government agencies engage in corruption or abuse of individuals' rights, then the officials involved are held responsible. But if there is a whole system whereby corruption or abuse of individual rights become routine in a particular government agency, then the relevant minister or head of that agency will be expected to resign, whether or not he personally knew about all the incidents. As head of one of the most powerful departments within the Vatican, with express responsibility, inter alia, for dealing with the issue of misconduct by priests, Ratzinger was in a position comparable to a senior minister in secular government. And it is clear that he was responsible for deciding on the policies which led directly to the extreme proliferation of abuse. As such, he should accept personal responsibility and resign as Pope.
Micahel @ 71
"Ratzinger may have thought . . ."
Given the evidence of Ratzinger's actions and inaction, the testimony of ictims and the documentary evidence we have seen to date (tip of iceberg) here is a far more plausible theory about what he "may have thought"
Ratzinger: I don't like defrocking priests, it makes us look bad and there's a lot of explaining to do.
Michael:
Your suspicion is not only unfounded, but erroneous. (Note: It is my wont to link to Wikipedia unless the article in question is factually wrong, for reasons I shan't here adumbrate.)
You might wish to note my emphasised portion, and further to consider that those instructions (since superseded, and not in a good way) allow for secrecy; you asked "how", I responded.
(You might also wish to note the source of that quote — specifically, his religion and his status.)
--
Anyway, I'm off to bed, so I shan't be responding for some time. Fear not, however — this is Pharyngula (a.k.a SIWOTI central). :)
QED @#81:
There is actually very little evidence about Ratzinger's actions and inaction. The strongest evidence is from the Munich archdiocese case (Hullerman). That case is troubling but not evidence of some sort of pattern.
In the present case, however, we simply have no smoking gun demonstrating a cover up. The case was beyond covering up. The abuse was public knowledge.
No one has responded to this simple point.
QED @#72:
"It's the immediately removing them from children, reporting them to the police, handing over evidence, cooperating with prosecutors, and defrocking that they have all wrong."
Read much? He had already been tried, convicted, sentenced, served his (probationary -- not the church's fault) time.
What could "reporting him to the police, handing over the evidence, cooperating with prosecutors" even *mean* at that point?
Face-palm.
Michael,
The guy had already been convicted, so being fired as a priest, aka "defrocked", would not have raised an eyebrow. Instead, Cardinal Ratzinger decided to keep him on as a priest. "He's really, really, really sorry he was caught and he's been to confession so we'll let him stay in a position to diddle the kiddies."
I do hiring and firing at my company. If one of my subordinates was convicted of a felony then he or she would be discharged the day I knew of the conviction. You and Pope Palpatine apparently don't agree.
Walton @#80:
You have your facts wrong.
The CDF under Ratzinger did not have responsibility for child abuse cases in general until 2001. This case was settled in the 80s.
Prior to 2001 the CDF had responsibility for cases involving solicitation in the confessional. There is no evidence that this case was of that kind. The CDF also had responsibility for requests for laicization (dispensation from priestly ministry). This seems to have been one of many many requests for laicization in the 70s. (Of course almost none of those cases involved child abuse, they were from priests wanting to marry and the like.)
Another one from Canada. Briefly: Abusing Canadian priest is appointed to high office within Vatican, Canadian bishop writes Vatican "Pleeeaaasee never promote this guy, it might piss off his victims to the point they go public and start a scandal." Lists six other bishops that share his concern.
Brad
What. The. Hell.
Did you seriously write that with a straight face? "Let loose in public?" Let him loose!
You can nit-pick the individual cases all you like, but the overall pattern is one of a criminal organization, and I'm a little surprised nobody has brought up RECO:
Criminal organization. The entire thing should be taken down and dismantled for this pervasive and repeated offense. It can be shown that profit was the motivation: it was done to prevent what is happening right now, the loss of congregants and the subsequent loss of income that represents.
onethird-man @#88
"Let him loose!"
Well, they did that in 1987, and in 1995 he molested a teen-age girl. So that sure helped a lot.
Michael,
you are an apologist for child raping priests and their pope. I have no more time for your absurd arguments.
I am now going to do something worthwhile and go watch Belsize Park RFC win the last match of the rugby season.
John Morales @#82,
"You might wish to note my emphasised portion, and further to consider that those instructions (since superseded, and not in a good way) allow for secrecy; you asked "how", I responded."
I asked how these instructions applied to the case at hand. You didn't respond to that. Because they didn't. These instructions apply to canonical trials involving certain specific offenses. There was no such trial here. Crimen solliciatationis wasn't involved at all.
You're off to bed, I'm off to work. SWABWOTI. (Something will always be wrong...)
I'm surprised anybody is stoopid enough to try to defend the amoral and criminal actions of the RCC. That takes someone who is not all there. As proven by Michael's inane posts.
Q.E.D. @#90:
You are misnamed. I suggest Q.E.~D.
I abhor child-rapists of all kinds and want to see them brought to justice.
The presence of such vile creatures is a stain on the Church. And those who have covered up their activities are thoroughly despicable.
But the evidence I have seen so far shows that in going after the Pope, you are going after the man most likely to deal with this problem, which is not going to be easy to uproot and destroy.
Nerd of Redhead @#92:
Thank you for your well-reasoned reply.
Please show me what criminal or amoral action I have defended. (And please don't say again that it was criminal or amoral not to report Kiesle to the authorities. As I've noted, the authorities had already done their thing.)
Yes, clearly the best way to solve the problem would to override the request of the diocese and insist more consideration is given over whether to remove priests convicted of child rape from the priesthood.
Yeap, that will send the right message.
Of course the current Pope (before he became Pope) did have an opportunity to tell dioceses around the world that should allegations of child rape be made against a priest then the relevant local authorities should be informed. He chose not to that, suggesting he did not think it that important.
Given the serious nature of the problem, and given the Pope is supposed to be head of a Church that lays great store by its claim of moral authority then he does not get a second chance.
I'd best mention: "asking to be defrocked" is effectively the same as being forced to "resign." I imagine the gentleman in question was pressured into asking for it rather than it coming down from on hight that he should be forcibly defrocked.
Again, publicity.
onethird-man @#96:
No, that is incorrect, twice over. (Not to mention that he was no "gentleman".)
He didn't ask "to be defrocked." He asked for a dispensation from his priestly ministry and vows.
Many, many priests have made this request without being pressured into it -- most typically because they wanted to marry. Making such a request is in no way tantamount to resigning.
It was the practice at the time to withhold such dispensation until the priest turned 40. This was precisely what happened with Kiesle.
Ratzinger instructed the bishop to provide "as much paternal care as possible" while waiting for a decision on his dispensation. I would read that as code for: for God's sakes, keep this man under your thumb and away from kids.
Again, there was no question of reporting him to the civil authorities. He had already been through the criminal justice system when Ratzinger came to the case.
Now, I really must go, so will cease disturbing your peace. Fire away, I promise not to answer.
I meant "making such a request is in no way tantamount to being forced to resign."
Now, bye.
@19: Yeah, Michael Coren -- Canada's own Catholic wingnut (albeit smarter than BillDo).
Interesting to hear about the legal aspects. I was actually considering writing an MP to hear if we can do anything.
So, as I understand it, we don't have much of a legal foot to stand on. And I recall that it wasn't possible to stop one of the African dictators from attending an meeting in Europe recently for the same reasons.
But what room do we have to making the Pope and his diplomatic representation personae non gratae? We may not be able to refuse recognising the Vatican as a sovereign state, but are we required to accept their representation? Would it be possible to withdraw diplomatic recognition from the Papal Nuntius?
Can we restrict Vatican citizens from entering our country? Is it possible to insist the they be granted visa before entering, and then refuse the visa on grounds of suspicion for crime?
If enough of the EU states introduce such measures on their own and somehow (likely through the use of black magic) get the EU to do it as a whole too, will it be possible to embargo the Vatican? The boycott helped break South Africa after all, didn't it?
What I particularly would like to see, is us twisting the arm of Italy, since the Vat doesn't have much infrastructure of its own. So would it for example be possible to restrict Vat helicopters from Italian airspace? Denying them the use of Italian airports would be a first step, of course.
"Please show me what criminal or amoral action I have defended. (And please don't say again that it was criminal or amoral not to report Kiesle to the authorities. As I've noted, the authorities had already done their thing.)"
Oh how about sending other pedophiles to Alaska to torment the brown people the media doesn't pay attention to?
Seriously, you act like Kiesle was the only criminal. Shame on you.
Seriously, Fuck you.
"Ratzinger instructed the bishop to provide "as much paternal care as possible" while waiting for a decision on his dispensation. I would read that as code for: for God's sakes, keep this man under your thumb and away from kids."
Yes, he did the best thing. if Only there were some outside system that could lock away and keep such offenders out of the public. A...secular justice system with a well financed and run prison and parole system....Sadly such things exist only in the wilds of our imagination. That's why I let the serial killer I know remain under my employee...if i fired him i'd loose tract of him and be unable to keep him under control. Sure the bodies under the craw space are piling up but...Ok fuck it it's just easier to call you an idiot
Also, no they didn't KEEP them away from kids, they sent them RIGHT BACK INTO WORKING WITH KIDS. seriously, are you high or stupid?
Seriously, what kind of moral system says anything other than turning criminals over to the proper authorities is ok? Michael is clearly a scion of a noble line of complete morons. his thought process THE CHURCH CAN DO NO WRONG--->the church's actions were not wrong. There's no civil words appropriate to respond to Michael, no one will convince him and he's going to be defending child rape with a shit-eater-grin his whole life. The only thing we should due is hurl verbal abuse and ridicule. I sugest each response to him just be a "Yo Pope" joke
Yo Pope is Sooooooooooooooooooooooo evil he started the "no child's behind left" policy
Yo Pope is ooooooooooooooooooooooo ugly he make jesus cry.
Hah. In the USA perhaps.
Look at that again. Read it aloud. Wait till I've crawled under the desk...
Link doesn't work.
Show me you are not amoral and a defender of criminal actions. You can easily do this by showing you support the civil prosecution of pedophile priests, and their automatic defrocking upon conviction. Show me you think that sending priests to other parishes and covering up the reason for the transfer was improper, and should result in the defrocking the bishops involved, all the way to the Vatican, and the present bishop of rome. Show me you have voted with your feet by converting to another religion (or forsaking religion) due to the actions of the RCC. You are either solving the problem or apologizing for it. Which is it? By your words, apologizing. Until you show otherwise, you are an amoral apologist for criminal actions.
Funny. I thought it was for the public prosecutor to establish whether there is enough evidence to press charges. And then it's the court of law to determine the question of guilt.
All we're asking is that the matter be treated appropriately. It can't be in the Pope's interest to be tried in the court of public opinion. If he's innocent what does he have to fear from a fair trial?
Twisting the arm of Berlusco"li"ni? I wish.
Michael:
Wait wait wait, what? Hold on. You're saying the only one who can protect us from the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church, so leave the Catholic Church alone or the Catholic Church will decide instead not to do something about the Catholic Church?
...
...
...
...
We are DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED.
The RCC can't be the only religious or para-religious organisation with systemic abuse problems. Do you think the current focus on the Vatican is diverting attention from them? Or can we take this opportunity to include (and destroy) them all?
So, I can't keep myself away... I admit to that.
OK, so let's see.
The question raised by the original post was whether Pope Benedict had been "busted" as part of a "cover-up."
All I've done is to refute that charge.
I have so far defended *only one man*, the pope, against one charge, of "covering up" in this particular case.
I am therefore an apologist for the Jesuits who sent pedophile priests to Alaska? No, I absolutely abhor that, and would like to see all guilty parties brought to justice.
I in no way think that the Church can do no wrong. I freely admit that the Church has done great wrong in many ways. In this I am simply echoing the previous and the current Pope.
I support immediately turning over all pedophile priests to the criminal justice system.
I support also immediately removing them from priestly ministry.
I never said that anything other than turning pedophiles over to the proper criminal authorities is OK.
But please note that in the supposed "smoking gun" case that this post is about, the criminal authorities had already had the case turned over to them and done their -- not very effective -- they didn't lock him up as they should have -- work.
The question is, what responsibility does Ratzinger bear in this unholy mess. There has been a concerted effort by the press for months now to come up with a "smoking gun." However, this effort has largely failed, as in this case.
There is one case so far brought forward in which Ratzinger seems to have some real responsibility and which I haven't yet seen adequately addressed: the Hullerman case in Munich when Ratzinger was archbishop. I would like to see that case more adequately addressed by the Pope and the Vatican. If the German authorities think there is enough evidence to bring charges in that case, they can do so. I do not expect that a conviction would result, but I could be wrong. I really do not see that there is any evidence that would support bringing charges in any American case at this time.
But at the same time the current Pope is doing a lot to address the crisis and rid the church of the cancer of child abuse by priests. He is planning to meet with more abuse victims and the Vatican is going to issue some stream-lined directives on dealing with child abuse allegations. I hope these will be modeled on the US current one-strike-you're-out policy. We'll see. I also hope the Pope will directly meet with victims of Hullerman, the priest in the Munich case. Again, we'll see.
Now I really must go.
@Thunderbird5 #30
Don't you know that those prod fundies have missionaries in those countries? They've been working hard for years to convert catholics to true xians tm (sorry, don't know how to the super tm).
They crawl over there in large numbers sponsored by churches here in the US. Here's something from my sister's church:
http://outreach.colonial.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&…
Then here's a brochure from a church my niece attends: http://www.gethope.net/sites/default/files/pageimages/GlobalHope_0910br… She went to Burkina Faso
I've heard of missions to France and Belgium (I think my sister went to Belgium)
Anyway, I do think there is a concerted effort within these churches to get people away from the catholic church and they will use (if they haven't already) these abuse stories to further their cause.
By the way, we were brought up Lutheran (my mother a former Catholic is still a Lutheran), rather conservative when I was young, then much more moderate when I was a teen. One of my sisters is still Lutheran--former Catholic husband, too. My fundie sister think Lutherans and Catholics are not xians. She thinks I'm too far gone and definitely headed for hell.
At a restaurant last night with family, had to sit through a prayer. After, I told them that was inappropriate in a public place and they could pray all they wanted silently, but it was rude to do it aloud. They all smiled and seemed to think, "There goes silly Lynn again". I announced to the newcomer (my sister's boyfriend) that I was an atheist--my mother asked my sister "Did you warn him about Lynn?". Sadly, my 6 yo was there too.
Michael
Uh, people resign just like priests can ask to be released from their vows all the time. When people are asked or forced to resign, it's usually a face-saving measure of some kind. I can't see a difference, frankly.
Defrocked, you are more correct, is tantamount to being fired. If he had been defrocked, that would have indicated the church had thought him culpable, rather than maintaining the possibility this was mistaken, or church persecution, or a lone child who wanted attention.
I've seen firsthand what happens in the midst of scandal. When somebody screws up, they are given a chance by the organization to leave on their own recognizance, usually to avoid the appearance of conflict, or anyone delving into an embarrassing matter.
This goes way beyond that. This was criminal, and he should have been "fired." Instead, the face-saving "resign" alternative was pushed on him, which Ratzi refused on the basis, not of "protecting the public" (the church has, through a forty or more year pattern proved itself woefully inept at reforming pedophiles) but to protect the reputation of the church.
I imagine a church diet program would consist of locking the offender in a full pantry.
As we contend, he has already "dealt with the problem". Ahem.
It's not just that he is now the head of the Church, nor is it even that, given the chance (which he had) to make sure at the very least that paedophile priests never worked with children again he ducked it, hushed it up, and permitted it to continue - it's much much worse than that.
It's that for all those years, as the Catholics went on and on about sins, in all their efflorescent complexity, evolving an entire theology around them, the real sin - using the Church's authority to abuse children in their charge physically and sexually - went unacknowledged and unpunished.
Their religious authority left them utterly blind, and then wilfully deaf and uncomprehending to the scandals in their midst.
What can one expect I suppose from a Church that for centuries tortured and slaughtered those who, a little like PZ, refused to accept that the Host was the literal body of Christ?
Morals my arse. Religion exposed as lacking any real decency or self-knowledge, and thus all legitimacy.
And Pope Stupid's a good symbolic leader for just these times.
from the BBC article:
Of course that says "including", but that doesn't mean the problem is limited to only those countries....
I just had no idea it was all done by this Kiesle guy. He sure gets around.
Yeah, no matter how you look at it, it certainly makes a lot of sense that they kept him in the priesthood for a while longer. Obviously these delusional fucks know best how to treat perverted criminals -- it's sort of like "the blind leading the blind", but it totally works, for real.
I mean, if they hadn't insisted that he remain a priest, who knows what may have happened. He might have gone and raped the whole fucking planet, and that just wouldn't do -- no, that is reserved only for special occasions involving corporal punishment/divine revelation.
But what were they to do? He was already put on probation. Surely everyone everywhere was informed of his previous misdeeds. Why not put him to work? As they say, he was kept on the payroll for "the good of the universal Church". Yeah, that's it. It was probably because of the strong demand by many parishioners for a child-abusing priest. Jebus knows, he was the only one they could find!
Unfortunately, none of that is actually true.
Let me rephrase it less sarcastically, on the off chance that Michael will get a clue: you're a fucking idiot.
A "one-stroke-you're-out" policy?
Michael
Calling allegations and continuing exposure of criminal obstruction of justice "petty gossip" hardly seems like addressing the crisis. Or rather, I suppose it does, but addressing it in a dismissive manner that translates to "we really don't care; we don't have to." They already have streamlined directives for dealing with child abuse. Do you mean they are going to change these to turning all allegations and evidence over to civil authorities, or do they (like you seem to think) that the best person to deal with Catholics and Catholics, and no civil authority should be involved?
Just defrocking the priests in question is not enough. ANY allegations should be turned over to the police immediately. The Church has a proven, long-standing, and extensive record of ineptitude at investigation and justice. Its fear of persecution is a mask for its fear of prosecution.
The current Pope, in his role as Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith prior to becoming Pope had plenty of opportunity to make it clear to Catholic dioceses around the world that allegations of abuse were to be reported to the appropriate civil authorities without delay. He chose not to do that. Instead he stressed the importance of cardinal law. That was a monumental failing on his part. Nothing he does subsequently can rectify that error.
Secondly, as the Kiesle case illustrates, even when a priest had been convicted of child rape the Pope, in his previous role, was reluctant to dismiss those found guilty of such crimes from the priesthood. Instead he was more concerned about how it made the Church look. Again this was a significant failing and again nothing he does subsequently can rectify the error.
So we have a man who was reluctant to tell Bishops to call in the police in cases of alleged abuse, and reluctant to remove those found guilty of abuse from the priesthood.
And this is the man who is supposed to be able to fix the problem ?
Nope. Let the lies begin. Apologists have nothing but lies.
Yep, either you agree with the cover ups, or you oppose them and condemn them, even going as far as quitting the church. Which is it? More apologies/rationalizations = more lies.
Too much illogic to deal with for the moment. Michael and the truth are not fit for one another. Just another delusional fool who thinks his amoral church can't do wrong. Take off the blinders Michael, and see the reality of the situation. Pretend the RCC is the Anglican, or any other church, and see how you think the handling of the situation is.
So what can you do? Well, UK Pharynguloids can go to Number 10 and sign my "Get the UK to de-recognize the Vatican" petition:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/NoVaticanState/
And here's a segment on The Pod Delusion explaining where the Vatican came from in the first place:
http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2010/04/04/episode-28-2nd-april-2010/
OK, blatant plugs over. We now return you to your usual comment stream...
Michael's comments above are rather interesting - somewhat like a sample of spirochetes under a microscope.
Earlier this week the Church line seemed to be that it was all JP2's fault.
Now Michael is blaming it all on, uh, something, somebody, anybody! other than Benny Hex. (I'm reminded of a line from Gene Wolfe's sf classic The Book of the New Sun, in which an extradimensional vehicle departs "in a direction to which I could not point after it had gone." [not quite verbatim])
So, did Michael not get the previous memo, or is he eruditely working off a newer one, as yet unleaked, eventually to constitute the basis of a glorious papal bull: "Obfuscatamos Omnibus Pro Tectum Pontifexus Teutonicus Gluteus Maximus"?
Walton, you're making me very glad that I'm not a lawyer and I don't have to try to make sense of this kind of mess. Happy studying :)
The US arrested Manuel Noriega when it invaded Panama, and imprison him on drug trafficking charges. Wasn't that a case of imposing criminal sanction on a head of state?
And bombed Allende.
Interesting that they're now blaming JPII. At the same time they're - naturally - shortlisting him for sainthood.
I guess that if God performs miracles through the remains of a Kinderfickerschutzorganizationsleiter, he must be quite fine with diddling the kids.
In that case the rottenness of the RCC goes all the way to the top. So if Benny Hex is innocent, God is to blame. Is that really what they want us to argue?
I made the mistake a few days ago and went to the pope's facebook page. Entering into the discussions I put forth the opinion that the rapists, pedophiles, and those who covered for them be brought to justice.
WAS THAT A MISTAKE!!!
According to one particular woman, all of the offenders have been taken care of and the church is making sure that it will never happen again.
There seems to be many people who are believing fully and deeply that the church can do no wrong. At all. Ever.
If you want a laugh, or have a need to pharyngulate a facebook page just look for "his holiness benedict" or some such Monte Pythonesque title. Not hard to find.
Its a riot.
And thank this website (Pharyngula) and all who contribute for keeping my sanity and humor alive.
Steve
Brainwashed christozombies denying and trivialising child abuse does not make me laugh.
Eamon Knight said:
"@19: Yeah, Michael Coren -- Canada's own Catholic wingnut (albeit smarter than BillDo)".
The same could be said about the average salamander.
In the cases of sexual abuse that I am aware of in the Episcopal Church the offender is requested to renounce his orders, to leave the priesthood, or whatever, voluntarily. I don't believe the request is never denied. If a person does not do this he/she would probably be inhibited and then be tried and deposed.
It is interesting listening to the defense of the Pope on EWTN, the RCC satellite network: half of the people blame it all on Vatican II, the others say that this all happened twenty to fifty years ago and is no longer relevant. Just once I would like to hear a Catholic authority say, "We fucked up. We're sorry. We will work harder to prevent this. We will compensate the victims in any way possible."
Fat chance.
Pilty, I assume that means you approve - well done; perhaps it's the first step on the road to rationality.
I would never click on anything the Hoax linked to. He is toxic in his thinking. Wowbagger, very brave of you.
NOR, it's an article about how Dawkins wants to have the Pope arrested when he's in the UK. Pilty may be a lot of things but a skilled cyber-hacker is most certainly not one of them.
Michael at #97:
I'm in no position to judge all the ins and outs of this particular case, but this interpretation sounds so familiar and so extremely nasty. Why, oh why do clergymen speak in codes? Why can't they make their meaning plain? If this man was already convicted, as you say, why couldn't Ratzinger just tell to the bishop, "keep this man away from kids," even, if you must use figures, "keep this man away from temptation"? Is there a better reason to be blunt than a conviction for child molestation?
But within the Catholic church, everything turns into vague "paternal care," "benediction," "for the love of God," what have you, and then come the exegeses and the experts, and suddenly we're all discussing the sex of angels. Or pinheads. Or something.
Hey, did you see that USA Swimming has better moral authority than the Pope? USA Swimming kicked the known molesters out of their organisation, and several got serious jail time.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0409/report-usa-swimming-coaches-abused-doz…
Wow, that doesn't sound like the Hoax we know. Mr. the RCC hierarchy can't do any wrong. Unless, of course, he is trying to show the atheists are wrong. I am suspicious. I doubt if his absolute conviction in all that is the RCC hierarchy has been overturned.
pistoreyu #130
See, this illustrates exactly why atheists should not be allowed to criticize religion. Atheists don't understand the sacred jargon revealed by The Big Guy In The Sky to the elect few. An atheist says "throw child raping priests in prison" whereas a certified goddist knows to say "our beloved yet delinquent brother repents of his transgression and is worthy of God's grace, so go, miscreant, and sin no more." Saying more is mere petty gossip. ;-P
interesting choice of words
Michael
This is complete and utter bullshit.
If the Pope really wanted "to do a lot to address this crisis" he would immediately weed out the child rapists and turn them over to the authorities. On top of that he would turn over any and all Church documents dealing with any allegations of child abuse by any current or past priests.
If he did that he would actually be doing something. These little pissant moves like you describe are more attempts to avoid actually addressing the issue.
His moral authority is non existent.
Michael:
Unless you are a complete and total sociopath, there is no justification whatsoever for using the RCC's bullshit response to defend them, especially not when the Pope himself has evidently been caught red-handed helping to perpetuate the atrocity. Absolutely no excuse, no justification can undo the damage the RCC has done to its reputation over the last nine years. Their moral standing is on a level with Scientology and The Family International.
Nerd @131, the Dungeon escapee's motives are transparent to me; it wishes to demonstrate the amoral secularists' conspiracy to persecute of the godliest man alive.
John Morales wrote:
Don't be so sure. Considering how extreme Pilty's views are, it's entirely possibly Ratzi isn't hardline enough for his tastes; perhaps he'd like to see him replaced with someone who'd do more to inspire Catholics to do what it takes to bring about God's kingdom on earth - a new Holy Roman Empire.
He's defending the alleged bishop of rome? The purveyor of no secular persecution for pederast/paedophile priests? Not very cogent, moral, or aware, is he.
There is a reason some trolls are banned (shudder)...
The religious titular "pope" (father) is used by a number of christian denominations. A religious titular is not a legal name change and quaint titles such as "his holiness" are just that, quaint. Let's be clear, his name is Ratzinger and he's a German citizen. I would be curious to see what the Italian Legal System would do with a German criminal warrant to extradite a German citizen.
Italy recognized the Vatican (a few buildings, a large courtyard, and a little park) as a separate "state" in exchange for the leaders of the Roman Catholic religion staying out of politics. Seems to me they have violated this agreement as they have recently been very intrusive in Italian politics on various topics including opposing gay rights.
The fiction that the Vatican is a separate nation (and that Ratzinger is a head of that state) is on par with the "autonomous tribal region" of northern Pakistan. The "Cherokee Nation" has a stronger argument of being a separate country than the Vatican. Does the Principal Chief, Deputy Chief, and Tribal Council of the Cherokee Nation have immunity from criminal prosecution, for any crime, anywhere in the world? Can Principal Chief Chad Smith molest a 12-year-old girl while on vacation in Ireland, rush back to Oklahoma and claim immunity as head of state? [An example only! Chad is probably a great guy.] I think this is an apt comparison as the Vatican most resembles a very-tiny-tiny Indian Reservation (with no indians). Actually, I would say the Vatican most resembles the Cherokee Nation (Cherokee Nation Entertainment, Inc.) owning a hotel in downtown Tulsa. That is, the Roman Catholic Church as a corporation owns property, has bank accounts, etc. But so what?
Point is, the Vatican as a "country" and Ratzinger as head os state is a polite fiction. If some American or Canadian living in the vatican residences bombed a medical facility and killed 50 Italian citizens - and the Vatican refused to hand him over to the Italian Legal System for persecution - the police would simply ransack the Vatican and arrest the criminal and the polite pretense would end.
Actually, the fiction is never-ending and circular...
The poop appoints bishops and then selects from among the bishops who will be an "elector cardinal." There are currently 121 elector cardinals, the previous poop appointed 68 of these guys.
When the poop picks a bishop/cardinal, these guys receive a "get out of jail free" card in he form of a Vatican passport. In reality, these guys are citizens of 54 different countries from around the world and as such are subject to the laws of the country they are [actual] citizens of.
Sixty cardinals are from Europe (two from the U.K.), 18 are from North America (11 from the U.S.), 18 are from Central and South America, 12 are from Africa, 11 are from Asia, and two are from Oceania (one from Australia and one from New Zealand).
When the poop dies, these guys - legal citizens of a number of different countries - elect a new poop. In this case, a legal citizen of Germany is given the religious position as head of their church.
That makes Ratzinger immune for legal prosecution for criminal felony conspiracy and aiding/abetting child molestation? He gets immunity from any crime anywhere in the world? Cuz a couple guys from the UK and some goof from New Zealand voted for him?
Huh?
Louis @68:
Here here!
That saved me from typing a less temperate version of the same observations.
Herr Ratsinger is without a shadow of a doubt guilty of commission of mass genocide.
If he cannot be prosecuted immediately, then International Law is utterly useless, and needs to be ignored.
That's a rather simplistic view and a non-sequitur.
As opposed to your shallow and unreflected armchair moralising, people in the real world are actually working on it.
Hah. In the USA perhaps.
In Latin America too, I'd bet. Non Catholic Christian religions have been steadily growing by attracting part of the vaguely Catholic / ex Catholic base in the last couple of decades.
I posted a Facebook status this morning saying "Benedict XVI: resign", and am waiting for outbursts from my Catholic friends...
Er... no. According to the Rome Statute, genocide is:
("Mass genocide" is redundant, incidentally, since genocide is by definition an act against a group of people.)
The mass child abuse may, arguably, constitute a crime against humanity, as I explained earlier. But a crime against humanity is not the same as genocide: they are separate international crimes.
You don't seem to know very much about international law, so I'm not sure why you feel entitled to have an opinion on it. Ignorance is not a problem, but ignorance accompanied by strong opinions tends to be a problem. I'm mostly ignorant about physics, for example, so I wouldn't expect physicists to take me seriously if I went around saying "string theory is utterly useless and needs to be ignored."
Read my posts above, which set out, in some detail, the position in international law. Or research it for yourself: there's plenty of information available on the internet. Or *gasp!* read a book.
Walton, perhaps you should've taken a leaf out of Dawkins' book: this pope is anything but charismatic.
Hateful as the institution is, the previous Kinderfickerschutzorganizationsleiter actually was well-liked by the general public.
Let him stay at the helm, I too say; the last thing I want is someone who is congenial and media-savvy to replace Palpatine. I mean, how much more harm (than he already has) can this dude do, anyway?
My thoughts exactly.If anyone could pull this off, then a German !!
:D
Well, the way I feel about it is that if the law is in great violation of our sense of morality then the onus is on the law to explain itself. Let's be honest here. In practice law often reflects historical accident or the wishes of power structures more than anything else. The Allies committed great atrocities in WWII (e.g, Dresden, Nagasaki, etc.) but they weren't prosecuted because they won. The US committed a great crime by invading Iraq, by no one was or probably ever will be prosecuted because it's the world's sole superpower.
If the Pope was the leader of a small religion and didn't have his own "state" (one with a the term "city" in the description and a population of about 1000), he'd so get locked up for what he did. If the fact that he is a "head of state" is stopping his prosecution then that's a great failure of the law, international or otherwise.
I find that a bit naive, laws are made by people who are in power and in a majority agreement about something, and I doubt you will ever get 100% approval for any law.So this "our sense of morality" is a weird construct, since laws are not passed by plebiscite.
Well it might not be stopping his prosecution, that's the whole point !!
And it does not follow that if this should fail, all international law should be dismissed as useless, as I pointed out above.
It stops his prosecution only in the courts of a foreign country. One of the basic rules of international law is that one state may not exercise jurisdiction over the sovereign acts of another state. It's a necessary corollary of the doctrine of the "sovereign equality" of states; all states are officially equal, and no state is entitled to violate the sovereignty of another. State A is, therefore, not entitled to impose its laws on the government of State B. And heads of state, heads of government and senior ministers enjoy a full personal immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign states, not because they are above the law, but rather because relations between states as equals could not function if State A could arrest and prosecute members of the government of State B for violations of State A's laws. State B is sovereign and equal to State A, and so State A is not entitled to force its law on State B.
But immunity does not mean that heads of state are immune from the jurisdiction of international law: they are subject to it, just like everyone else. The Pope can, in theory, be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court, if he is accused of an international crime having been committed in a country which is party to the Statute of Rome. As I said earlier, it is arguable that he is guilty of crimes against humanity, which fall within the ICC's jurisdiction. Rape and sexual violence, when committed as part of a "widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population", can constitute a crime against humanity. You'd have to establish that the victims of abuse constitute a "civilian population" for purposes of the Statute, that the abuse was sufficiently "widespread and systematic", and that it was the result of a deliberate policy on the part of the Vatican. I don't think this argument would succeed on the merits, but it would certainly be possible, in legal terms, to prosecute the Pope before the ICC.
Absolutely true. International law, like any other law, has to function within the power structure that actually exists. And in the real world, like it or not, the international political order is still dominated by sovereign nation-states. International law reflects this fact, and so most of it is concerned with the relations between nation-states. Since WWII, there has also been an increasing body of international law dedicated to protecting fundamental human rights and norms of civilised behaviour: but it is, inevitably, applied inconsistently, because it relies on the co-operation of states in order to put it into practice, and that co-operation is not always forthcoming.
Fundamentally, a useful system of law has to work in the world we've got, not the world we'd like to have. And so it should be no surprise that international law fundamentally reflects the power relations between nation-states. The doctrine of state sovereignty may often seem silly, arbitrary, and even morally abhorrent: but in the world we live in, it's necessary, unless you want to give the world's major military powers (the United States, China, Russia and so on) legal carte blanche to coerce smaller countries without any sort of restraint.
Maybe. But bear in mind that the Pope's status as an international figure doesn't just depend on the Vatican City State, which has only existed since 1929. The Holy See is a special sui generis entity in international law, and has always been treated as independent and entitled to enter into relations with states, even when (between 1870 and 1929) it had no territory of its own.
But I agree that it's historically arbitrary. Yet this is the trade-off we have to make in order to preserve the international balance of power.
Sorry for the long post.
I don't see what's naive about it. Many of the great movements in the 20th century were against unjust laws. People do in fact have the power to change these laws.
To quote MLK: "One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
Yes, I agree. I never said international law, with all its faults, is "useless" nor do I believe it.
I guess he doesn't give a Ratz-arse about the pain and siffering of individuals compared to the reputation of the church
Well yes, absolutely, but if a majority thinks it is unjust to not go after heads of states for crimes, say, then you dont have to convince the public, you have to convince the people whose job it would be to prosecute.
I don't know, I'm really not an authority on this stuff, and I might be way off, but I just think what you need here is not moral sea change but prosecutors given legal tools to go after child molesters hiding behind the curtain of organised religion.
As I understand the UK's Human Rights Act takes precedent over other laws. Therefore why cannot it not be argued that the Pope does not have immunity as a head of state as there is no realistic possibility of his ceasing to be head of state and thus to allow him immunity would deny the right of the victims of abuse to have those responsible for that abuse held to account ?
I apologize for my ignorance of law in advance....
Well, in #40 you did write that international tribunals "have absolutely no jurisdiction over child molestation or the covering-up thereof, which is a crime under national, not international, law."
You also don't think that charging the Pope with crimes against humanity will work. Do you think there is any legal way to convict the Pope of the crimes he committed? If not, don't you agree this is a failure of the law?
(Don't get me wrong here. My goal isn't to say "the law sucks". It's more "the law sucks here, let's improve it". If it's working fine in one area there's not much more to say.)
True. Just take Nicaragua v. United States.
Well, they already do a lot of coercion (see above). I don't really think that the idea of state sovereignty is the only thing stopping them. In the US, at least, certainly backlash from the population plays a role. That's one of the reasons why many foreign regime overthrows done by the US have been covert. There would be much backlash if more of these actions were done openly.
The way I see it it means we should change it, either by the inside or by outside pressure.
No problem. Hopefully it's helping with your studies. At least it's making me learn some law.
To Matt Penfold -
Alas, you are incorrect. No Act of Parliament can take precedence over another. The Human Rights Act only requires judges to interpret other Acts as far as possible in the light of the Human Rights Act.
If an Act conflicts with the HRA and cannot be reconciled with it, a Declaration of Incompatibility is made. It is then up to the Minister concerned to decide if a change in the law is made - it is not obligatory to do so. However, the conflicting Act must still be followed, no matter how huge the conflict is.
Theoretically, an Act could be passed allowing me to kill people. This Act would be entirely valid, and you would not be able to jail me for murder simply because the HRA conflicts with it.
Looks like there are some folks on Twitter trying to make #popearrest a trending topic.
More on Dawkins and Hitchens' plan to have the pope arrested.
@Walton-- I appreciate you taking time out from your studies to explain the legal situation as I am far too ignorant of such matters.
I wonder if lawyers ever ponder why they are held in such low esteem.
Where is the Pope going next? Surely given the wide base of this site, and the evidence we could Pharyngulate a Papal citizen's arrest?
Surprise, surprise. MSM journo caught stretching the truth. Quoth the Dawk:
I think someone will change his travel plans....
I think this is a realistic prediction. Ratzi will most probably remain in charge without being convicted of anything and will die in some time to come.
This will however accelerate the decline of the RCC in the West.
Question is whether those who will leave the church or not join it because of this will become non religious or join another church?
Religion is a competitive business and anything bad for one's reputation makes one loose market share. If a competitor looses too much market share, the CEO usually gets sacked. I doubt it will happen here because the loss of market share is going to be slower than with a normal business and the RCC will probably consider that it is best to replace Ratzi through the current process of natural death rather than via a coup d'état that they probably consider even worse for the chruch's reputation (rational reasoning is anyway not the strength of the highest instances of any church).
In those countries with a competitive market with several well established competitors like the US, most of the catholics who get fed up with this will probably join a competitor. In those countries where catholicism is the only dominant religion (eg Ireland, Southern Europe) this will probably accelerate secularisation.
Want to bet that he won't?
The reason why Pinochet got arrested in London in 1998 was that there was a request from Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon who was seeking to put him on trial for human rights abuses during operation Condor.
IANAL, but it seems unless there is such a request from a judge from a certain country (which one?) by the time of his visit in a few months, he won't risk getting arrested. Plus he's on invitation of Britain for a 'state visit' which Pinochet wasn't. In the case of Garzon and Pinochet, it didn't take just a few months to get the request of an international arrest from the moment plaintiffs had started with presenting allegations in court to open the investigation.
I think Dawkins and Hitchens should follow suit, even if it's not for this visit to the UK, Ratzi will most likely make some other visits in other countries in the years to come that are not 'state visits' and by then, who knows, some judge somewhere might have issued an international arrest request for Ratzi.
Matt Penfold at 158
yes we do. In fact US lawyers have an ethical obligation to provide pro bono (free)services to those who cannot afford legal representation. Lawyers provide free legal advice to the indigent, falsely accused, asylum seekers, people seeking social benefits they are entitled to etc.
I spent hundreds of hours (supported and paid for my my firm) representing a Cote d'Ivoire political asylum seeker in the US. His brother was killed and his father tortured by the political opposition. As a result he is a free man living in the US and eligible for citizenship.
Before we repeat the trope of "first let's kill all the lawyers" let's think about how many professions dedicate as much time to providing their services to people for free.
More RCC madness:
The Trouble with Celibacy
In Africa, Catholicism's best growth market, many priests have little use for Rome's chastity mandate.
==================================================
Mumbo-Jumbo.
Christianity chained mind and body for centuries,
too many, a-counting,
and it's time for people to storm the Vatican citadel
and all its outlying bastions housing its loafing serfs.
With the exception of a few churches,
here and there,
to be remodeled as planetary observatories,
and equipped with telescopes for all citizens to use
in wonder and awe beholding their real neighborhood,
it's time to sell-off the rest of the real estate and hoarded wealth,
said proceeds to be used for the education of promising students
whose parents can’t afford to further their education,
and also to help feed the poor with calories and condoms,
and then,
to kick the ex-priests in their holy asses
all the way to the unemployment-line,
so they can make a productive contribution to society,
and never again be able to perform their seductive mumbo-jumbo!
In whom else do we approve and allow such narcissistic indulgence,
based solely on imaginary realms of good and evil, god and devil,
as holy men and holy sisters display in their vocational preoccupation;
when will Christians, as well as Muslims and Jews,
be free and courageous enough to say: “No More!”,
to their diseased societal parasites feeding on Earth’s poor humanity?
=========================================================
Does not the Vatican have a seat in the United Nations, whence it blocks measures to provide birth control information and supplies to poor nations, Despite forced pregnancy being a crime against humanity?
I thought so: Vatican does not deserve U.N. status.