Dawkins plans on arresting the Pope
Mikey 26 comments
Well known atheist icon Professor Richard Dawkins says he plans to arrest the Pope over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.
He isn't going it alone of course (you'd need more ammunition), and has recruited the very reputable Barrister Geoffrey Robertson and Solicitor Mark Stephens to make a case against the Pope.
Said Dawkins:
"This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence."
They reckon they can persuade the Crown Prosecution Service to initiate criminal proceedings against the Pope and launch their own civil action against him.
Gina
Monday 12th April 2010 | 02:16 PMThis should be interesting. Thanks for the news, Mikey. Keep us posted.
Dare I ask... SHOULD they go to jail because they prefer a different moral code? Ah, the inconsistent moral indignation of people who deny objective morality.
But seriously, I think the Vatican is its own Sovereign state and thus the Pope is not liable to arrest under another state's jurisdiction unless he commits an overt crime against that state while within its borders. Not saying he shouldnt be held responsible and those priests held to the highest standard of law (since as a moral realist I think they are actually obliged to not molest children or cover up when others do) but I'm just saying I think that Dawkins, in his never ceasing attempt at sensationalism, is going more for publicity than anything else. Though in this case I dont mind the publicity. The Roman Catholic church needs to be held accountable for its actions. (But something tells me Dawkins is not in it out of the goodness of his heart, but is more interested in malicious press against religion and is using a moral issue as just a convenient tool to do it. Just a hunch.)
Trent Greguhn
Monday 12th April 2010 | 02:44 PM...in response to this comment by Tyler V. Couldn't help yourself could you Tyler? That discussion is in another thread. But you know, people can't have opinions on morality, even though you admit that there is grey moral areas meaning we have to pick a side one way or the other. Right.
Yes, they should go to jail. These priests aren't in the Vatican, and I never said the Pope should be arrested because I already know how that's not going to happen, but the priests at least should.
Kim OJ
Monday 12th April 2010 | 03:02 PM...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "Dawkins is not in it out of the goodness of his heart, but is more interested in malicious press against religion"
In Dawkins perspective those two are complimentary, and with an eye to the crimes of the church, that makes sense.
Perhaps as a believer in cosmic justice, you can tell me whether a criminal will be punished less in the afterlife if he receives punishment during his life?
Both the answers seem somewhat problematic.
Phil H
Monday 12th April 2010 | 05:51 PMI can't help thinking this would backfire horribly and end up looking a little too much like persecution of the Pope and hence the Church, and hence ordinary Catholics (most of whom are horrified by the Church's behaviour). And make cheerleading atheists look like self-congratulatory blackslapping wankers, obscuring the point they're trying to make.
A better approach would be to get lots of people (ordinary Catholics too) involved in a large protest against the Church's response to the scandal, forcing the Church to reconsider its position. The Pope may deserve jail, but that doesn't make it the best course of action in the bigger picture.
Marvin the Martian
Monday 12th April 2010 | 06:03 PMIf this ends up being a battle between atheists and the Catholic Church, so be it. It is about time that the Church paid in full for its crimes. In this case, it has been proven that the current Pope is PERSONALLY guilty of these crimes (yes he didn't touch the boys himself, but was complicit is their repeated cover ups). In addition the Church needs to finally come to grips with the long history of bigotry, racism, genocide and more. If they survive, then so be it, but they need to be put on trial for their crimes like any other institution or entity.
Rodney
Monday 12th April 2010 | 06:14 PMI think from a legalistic point of view, it's a non-event. Because Dawkins might even be able to get the case before a judge - but he's going to be a British judge and the last time I checked (which admittedly was never), the Pope doesn't live in the UK. So even a conviction is useless, in this case, except as a symbolic victory.
At the end of the day, I *imagine* that the Church is probably something like a company? A separate and independent legal entity? As such, it should probably be held accountable under company law. So if let's say BHP Billiton covered up mass sexual abuse on mine sites then whatever laws applied to BHP Billiton management should apply to the Church's "management"? That seems only fair?
However I think in this case the Vatican is sort of technically it's own country, right? So it's probably going to be pretty hard to get a judge in the Vatican to hear this case.
None the less, the "in principle" on this one seems pretty sound.
Henk V
Monday 12th April 2010 | 06:59 PMRod,
It depends on what sort of suit Dawkins wishes to file. If the pope has said anything that appears to be libellous in british press then any one (or any national) can take it to court. The onus is then on the defendant to pay court costs until the first round of the action is over. Its the basis of what can be termed as judicial tourism in britain.
In the case of cover up, it all depends on what is said by the pope to the british audience. Personally, I think Dawkins needs a good stunt because he is getting a bit jaded repeating the same old argument over the past two years.
Yes, I too noticed "Jerk Morality" raising its stupid head once more. The US education system should be taken to court for raising an entire generation of virtual arts students.. goodness only knows the depths panned to educate their actual arts students. Still, a trillion or so here and there in wasted budget is in no way going to effect the science literacy of the US invertebrates and their stupid theological cousins.
Henk V
Monday 12th April 2010 | 07:04 PMTruly what a tragedy its been.. ten years of educational dominance to be chased by 40 years of ingrained ignorance based education. No wonder "frat house" is the catch cry of the US college system.
Personally, I'd like to see US science education go down the tubes. It means more green cards for nationals who kept their heads down and bums up at school or Uni!
"Son, Whats your major at UCLA? "
"Right guard?"
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 12th April 2010 | 07:40 PMI wish I knew why these parents and children did not just go to the police.
Paedophilia is criminal. They would be in jail.
Henk V
Monday 12th April 2010 | 07:56 PMI think the appeal to a higher authority has its advantages Jake.
The incidences of rape, violence and murder are highest amongst families and associates of the families. Any one with half a brain can get in under the protection of a trusted familial unit.
Problem is, in a lot of cases these only have half a brain. The consideration of future remorse and pain to all is in the missing half.
To be absolutely truthful, its not just local religious leaders. Its troupe leaders, band leaders, teachers, employers, work place associates and the pimply kid across the road. Corruption by proximity is common place. It's just opportunity.
The really sad thing is, when anyone of the above list is caught the repercussions are almost immediate. Unless of course you have to face the ire of the community by accusing a trusted religious leader.
Natural selection ensures that the predator in the right environment will flourish. If the niche changes the predatory strategies will always change.
Its why I like orca-seaworld trainer interactions. Some never see it coming.
Can I just ask if any one has ever handled a baboon?
Bet you cant type an answer.
TVBIZ(BOB)
Monday 12th April 2010 | 08:18 PMDo you honestly think that the Catholic Priest abuses are the only ones to be covered up?
I think that you will find that any religion, male or female has had its own share of similar cases. The only difference is they have done a better job of keeping the incidences quite.
Priests are not Gods - they are just men and women like you and I. I really find it hard to understand how one could isolate themselves from the normal practice of sexual contact, just being Human. It's a recipe for disaster and overtime even if your beliefs are strong, human fragility will always get the better of you.
If you are put into a situation where you think you are above everyone, maybe have a slight mental disorder and starved of normal sexual practices, then even the most reverend will possibly show Human weaknesses and flaws.
The main problem is that the Church is suppose to be setting the moral grounds for all who believe and these situations are making a mockery of religion as a whole.
The Church is an open target for anyone who needs to get across their own beliefs or disbeliefs.
I don't think Dawkins goes around threatening to arrest every child molester or their cohorts in society so why is he so interested in the Pope?
Tell me it's not because Hawkins is against all religions' and this is just a toe hold for more Atheist publicity?
Well is it?
EricVonZipper
Monday 12th April 2010 | 08:22 PMPlease update the title of this story.
More info here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415
Henk V
Monday 12th April 2010 | 10:16 PMSideshow;
a) wtf are you talking to?
b) Ive already made the case for all religious leaders. Paedophiles are not sex deprived, they are psychopaths. Priests are sex deprived by about 800 years of tradition at the parish level.
c) explain what a slight mental disorder is? Psychopathy probably doesnt come under that banner. Thuggery and narcissism are personality disorders. Such pathological behaviour doesnt come under the banner of human weakness. Its actually a total lack of empathy. Buy a dummies guide to psychology please.
d) religion claiming moral grounds? since when? I'll ask the lab baboons about this one day.
e) the public in general is the target for the religion to ram its views down..its called pastoral work. I dont want it, fuck off with your proselytising and harassing me and the folk in my local society. If you want to play hand holdies around a loaf of bread and a jar of tomato sauce do so. but dont drag other people, especially children into the sick covens you call a healthy life.
f) as I stated, the pope is a stooge, he needs to be held responsible as he is the head of a sick organisation. Try him and jail him. Dawkins needs a new cause. This is appropriate. Religion, disease and the failure of the vatican quality control program for children being brainwashed into its coven.
g) we just spent our budget for a papal tour that was likely to be slated for free dental health centres. You tell me whats more important, extending peoples lives or having some sick religions representative touring and.. IMPOSING A THOUGHT CRIME LEGISLATION ON THE SYDNEY PUBLIC.
Some people confuse priorities. Religion is a luxury in the west. Dont do it on my turf. Dont do it on my time and for goodness sake dont proselytise in front of me in the street.
Sideshow...well is it?
Trent Greguhn
Monday 12th April 2010 | 11:02 PM...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). Just sounds like you're justifying the priests. They were toe ones who decided to have those sexual restrictions placed on them. Even with sexual restrictions, who decides to vent those frustrations on small boys instead of grown women?
And look at the update to the story. Dawkins never said he was going to go arrest the Pope. Looks like another quote and comment taken out of context by the paper who talked to him.
Henk V
Monday 12th April 2010 | 11:51 PMThanx Trent,
Quote:
Just sounds like you're justifying the priests. They were toe ones who decided to have those sexual restrictions placed on them. Even with sexual restrictions, who decides to vent those frustrations on small boys instead of grown women?
End Quote
Ireland must be sick of this by now, not only have they had to put up with normally sexually narcissictic priests under the washerwoman program (that ended in the 70's from memory) but they have had an almighty slap in the face of late w.r.t. paedophile predation (of both sexes).
As I've stated previously, if anyone practiced their well learned life skills in this manner in the work place or as a child or woman's representative they would be jailed when named and shamed.
A religious leader (of any ilk) has the added protection that the community will gang up on the accuser (and the victim) when anything needs to be done on the issue. Subtle behaviours can amplify under this sort of situation to outright personal invasion.
Other situations I can think of is serial abuse inflicted by spouses until it escalates into permanent damage (yes, guys it goes two ways very often) and "heroes" abusing their position (footballers and rockstars).
I am not sure if you guys are aware that any mentally traumatic event is also a neurophysiological assault. Continued and sometimes single events will reduce an area in the brain called the limbic region. Witnessing a single horrific car accident may be enough for some, continued rape or beatings for others and "screwy, angry, soldiers coming home from war" exhibit this Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Strangely (?) delaying treatment for depression may also result in such a condition.
Abuse is not just physical, its not just conditioning to perpetrate a new phase of behaviour, its assault on someone's cognition and empathy.
As we say in Oz, "that's not just sick, its fucked".
Can you blame the Pope for running and hiding when other organisations seem to be faring better? No, not at all.
Is that justifiable or any help for the victims or those looking to him for leadership? No, not at all.
He wont fall on his sword or be removed (Popes can retire!). He can implement a program removing priests from "protective custody" and allowing them to be charged. He can even remove them from office posthumously.
A good broom is required here. The Catholic public deserve it. A retirement by the Pope would even show solidarity for those who have been scarred for life!
It would be sad to remember any modern Pope as the keystone in an arch of perversion.
Henk V
Tuesday 13th April 2010 | 12:12 AMFrom PZ Myers BLOG column, Pharyngula
How bad can a Catholic priest get?
Category: Religion
Posted on: April 6, 2010 10:07 AM, by PZ Myers
Sorry, I'm going to have to ruin your breakfast again. The Stranger has a revealing article on pedophile priests in particular, it focuses on the native populations of Alaska and Canada, which were used as a nice, obscure dumping ground for the very worst sexual predators the Catholic Church could provide. Small children were raped, entire villages are decimated by mental health trauma and suicides brought on by these monsters, and in one particularly appalling instance, a priest was caught raping a dying woman he was supposed to give the last rites. There's also an interview with a former priest who was a "cleaner" (yes, he actually calls himself that), brought in to tidy up the messes these evil men brought into a community
before they got shipped off to another community.
The sheer concentration of known sex offenders in these isolated communities begins to look less like an accident than a plan. Their institutional protection looks less like an embarrassed cover-up than aiding and abetting. And the way the church has settled case after case across the country, refusing to let most of them go to trial for a public airing, is starting to look like an admission of guilt.
Here's the reason why the church covers up for rapist priests.
Why does the church keep sending these priests, who have come to be such a major liability, back into ministry? "It's all about keeping the stores open, keeping the revenue rolling," Wall says. The Alaskan provinces in particular, Wall says, were a source of revenue--not from the Native population living there, but from parishioners in the lower 48 who were encouraged to donate for the Native ministry up north. "You could raise thousands to fund a mission that cost very little to run," Wall says. "The profit margin is huge."
The story makes 1950s Ireland look like a paradise of blissful religious sanctity. It is not for the squeamish.
If you'd rather read something a little more encouraging, read Katha Politt on priestly pedophilia. She nails the priesthood on their sanctimony and hypocrisy, and their pretense to a moral superiority that is so patently betrayed. She also mentions this surprising story:
In February, Bishop Margot Kaessmann, the first woman to head the German Protestant Church and a much-admired public figure, was caught running a red light while intoxicated. There was a lot of sympathy for her, even in the conservative media, which disagreed with her liberal and anti-war views, and she received the support of the church's governing body. Nonetheless, within four days Kaessmann resigned, saying her moral authority had been so compromised she could no longer do right by her high office. Maybe Pope Benedict and his bishops could learn something from her example.
What? A Protestant bishop resigns for the crime of running a red light under the influence? She got a traffic ticket and felt her moral authority was compromised? I mean, that's a bit excessive, but OK, at least she's taking religion's claims of morality extremely seriously.
Meanwhile, the Pope heads a Catholic office that was sheltering child-rapers, and the entire Catholic hierarchy is busily claiming the martyrdom of Christ for itself because people have started to complain about their intrusive little penises. They aren't even trying for the moral flood plain, let alone the moral high ground. It's more like they're taking a dive in the Marianas Trench of turpitude while pretending to climb the Everest of propriety.
While we can't expect the church to expire in shame, at least we should start regarding Catholicism as a Mafia-like criminal organization
and maybe our governments should stop treating with them
aries
Tuesday 13th April 2010 | 11:07 AMWhy should holy (hahahaha) men be exempt from the laws that they themselves espouse and are supposed to guide us to upkeep??? Maybe the Vatican should address it's abstinence policy, then maybe we wouldn't have a bunch of horny sexually frustrated priests running around fiddling with our kids??? It's not rocket science people, Jesus!!! Also, a judges role is to be absolutely impartial, so for any judge to refuse to try a case on any grounds like religion is not possible.
Oh, and Kim, there is no punishment in the afterlife, it just doesn't work like that mate...
Marvin the Martian
Tuesday 13th April 2010 | 11:38 AMI don't understand why people are surprised that the RC Church attracts child molesters. You have a close group of single men, who wear dresses and funny hats, who are not allowed to touch themselves surrounded by pre-pubecent boys singing in high octaves. If you get caught diddling a kid, you get a free move to a new parish where you can start all over again. In some cases, you end up where other molesters have been sent, and you now have a little club where you can protect one another from being discovered.
Marvin the Martian
Tuesday 13th April 2010 | 11:45 AMAnd now reporting of abuse claims in Kenya that for almost a year have not been investigted, nor have the claims even been sent up the chain to the vatican.
source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/12/renato-kizito-sesana-abus_n_533809.html
...in response to this comment by Tyler V. "a different moral code" JFC Tyler, you've got to be kidding..."the Vatican is its own Sovereign state and thus the pope is not liable to arrest" OMG, you cant be serious. You really think the pope is above the law?
Incomprehensible....
F-
Henk V
Thursday 3rd June 2010 | 03:20 PMExcuse me, these is a cost associated with red wine, pizza, avocados, tomatoes and aubergines. The church, just as I, loses concentration along the path.
"For what I am about to receive make the lord make me truly thankful" has lost its meaning. In the good old days it meant a thoroughly satisfying whipping, mauling, excoriation, burning, crucifixion or boiling in oil or water. It was pretty quick that christians got the gist that "giving was far better than receiving". Aaah flaying and red hot pokers, who can forget the good old days of torture as being the right of all christians?
Its a moot point that if christians hadnt behaved like they did, we wouldnt have muslims at all let alone those who are trained to despise christians.
Anyway, by the time medieval christianity rolled around so did abstinence for priests. This change the old saying "i think I'll have a few good buns for lunch" to "a cheeky bum at matins".
Yes, Quasimodo; bats in the belfry. Its the second coming on Sundays that confused the laity.
Henk V
Saturday 5th June 2010 | 08:04 AMMay I comment on Friendo's statement?
Under UN legislature the Vatican is not a sovereign state in some ways and is a state in other ways. The "holy see" has certain signatory powers to bolster its "validity" world wide. This comes after a honey deal signed with european fascism all those years ago. The U.N. allowed it to continue as it sees religious rights extending to maintaining religious power bases (not so in my book).
If you are a sovereign state you have to declare your human rights track record under "YOUR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE" as well as home. This is why its so easy to pick off western states as they do declare their problems. Lets face it, there is nothing easier than criticising the US, Turkey, Israel and South Africa's behaviour (or our abysmal behaviour here).
The problem here is, the statehood devolved by the Holy See is nothing of the sort. Its a titular home base. Its the head of the church or the governor of the Vatican that would be held responsible under this situation.
I think that if anyone goes on trial it would be a number of bishops of the church and not just the pope.
You wonder why folk never cottoned on to the small "c" catholic before.
If we are going to make a start on religion being responsible and fair to its practitioners, you start at the top and whittle your way down. Somebody in other religions are going to notice and start eschewing their own fervent nut cases.
Dammit, if the UN made disaster zones a "no proselytising" zone, disaster relief could be many times more efficient for the "at hand" resources.
Ask China! Go over there with 10,000 bibles after an earthquake. You'll enjoy the court case even if you don't get to see it prior to your confession of crimes against the state.
Actually, just go to China with anything they view as contraband. Fun, Fun, Fun!
Henk V
Thursday 10th June 2010 | 02:45 PMAnd strangely, you'd actually wonder if China is going to have a fairer democracy than our western model in 50 years time.
I doubt it, but it would be nice if someone did have it right after all this time.
Ideology, who needs it? Pass the nails guys.
elizabeth
Tuesday 29th June 2010 | 03:25 AMI do not think a pope has ever been arrested
by the way I found a website that give you prizes for your opinions and 4 play games here is the topic about This:
http://opinion.ezwingame.com/topics/should-the-pope-be-arrested-for-complicity
Trent Greguhn
Monday 12th April 2010 | 01:50 PMPope's an accomplice. Those priests should go to jail, seriously, there's no reason why they shouldn't.