Richard Dawkins has really flipped this time

[Count Zero]

Wouldn't the international law against statutory rape hold water for any non-U.S. incidents? In the U.S., I believe we should pursue it and take it all the way up to the top if necessary. Surely international laws have some way to prosecute those who rape and molest children.

Surely, but the Pope didn't rape or molest any children. And even if he did, those offenses usually have a statute of limitation. That's why most of the cases that have surfaced over the last months here in Germany can't be prosecuted. They happened too long ago.
The letter then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote might cast a dubious light on him, but it's far from evidence that could get him indicted for anything, certainly not for 'crimes against humanity'. This is just a publicity stunt, probably well-intentioned, but ultimately a farce. I'm not sure this will help the victims at all.

 

[David cgc]

Honestly, I think this is a "Nixon going to China" thing. I'm all for cleaning house in regards to the pedophilia situation, but Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are absolutely not the men to be leading the charge, as it looks like (and, for that matter, probably is the case that) they're just exploiting the scandal to advance their own prior agenda of bringing down the Religion Machine. No, we need someone to lead the charge from our side. It has to be someone religious. Preferably Catholic, or formerly so. An actual Priest would be ideal, but I think that that's even less likely than the laity getting up off our fat asses and realizing that maybe we can actually have a say in what's happening in God's Church.

 

[Amaris]

Well, we'll just have to disagree about Dawkins, then. If not mad, he certainly isn't consistent. With the majority of sexual abuse happening within families and schools, why isn't he demanding the arrest of fathers and secretaries of education?

Who says he isn't? Then again, fathers and secretaries of education don't have a built in worldwide organization to shuttle them off to different parishes instead of releasing them to the police to be questioned. The Catholic Church Hierarchy seems to be pouring on as much teflon as they can to mitigate the consequences of these Priests who have betrayed the sacred trust that they so declare to honor before god. It's time they were taken to task for it, and if the Pope has knowledge, and won't do anything about it under the law, then he needs to be taken to task for it. That is a reasonable position.

But that's not the point. If (I repeat, if) it is proven that the pope has personally been responsible for protecting child molesters then, yes, he must be held accountable by law, and I believe he would agree himself.

But the trouble is that there is no such proof. Certain newspapers and websites would like us to believe otherwise, but none of the claims have been proven, or even stand up to scrutiny.

An interesting collection of articles and analyses in defense of the pope can be found here: http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/. Some of the pieces there don't directly deal with the pope's alleged defense of abusers, but it is worth a look nonetheless.

There is no way the Pope had no knowledge of these Priests being moved around, and the cited 1985 article from your link is an indictment of such. "For the good of the universal church?" Yeah, how about the good of the molested child? Does that matter? Would Peter have allowed one of his own to rape or sexually molest a child? Would he have ignored it for the good of the church? He didn't seem to like hypocrisy very much. So here we have the Pope, who is supposed to be the spiritual descendant of Peter, ignoring the issue of child molestation "for the good of the universal church" and sweeping it under the rug. Do you find that at all acceptable?

Well we should probably take step back and remember that the Pope didn't rape and molest children. If he had then there's plenty of offences he could be arrested for. What he's accused of is writing a letter which intended to spare a priest who did from being defrocked. That's pretty twisted, but not illegal unless his intent was to actively facilitate further crime, or evasion of criminal justice.

It is evasion of criminal justice. There shouldn't have been an advisement of caution, there should have been an immediate effort to secure the safety of the children under this man's authority and put that Priest behind bars. That he didn't speaks volumes about where his priorities lie.

Actually, the letter that's being discussed by cultcross and Axiom above dealt with a request from the priest himself, via his bishop, to be defrocked (he asked for dispensation of the requirement of celibacy). Cardinal Ratzinger advised caution. He didn't say yes or no, but advocated further investigation before coming to a conclusion. An important difference.

The priest in question was 'defrocked' eventually and served time in prison.

Here's a link to the text of the letter: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612596.stm?loc=interstitialskip

Yes, but the Pope had no part in that. He advised caution in a situation that didn't warrant caution. It was apparent that someone else had the courage, ethics and spiritual fortitude necessary to get the job done.

Surely, but the Pope didn't rape or molest any children. And even if he did, those offenses usually have a statute of limitation. That's why most of the cases that have surfaced over the last months here in Germany can't be prosecuted. They happened too long ago.
The letter then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote might cast a dubious light on him, but it's far from evidence that could get him indicted for anything, certainly not for 'crimes against humanity'. This is just a publicity stunt, probably well-intentioned, but ultimately a farce. I'm not sure this will help the victims at all.

Here's the deal: In Catholicism, the Pope is the top of the spiritual food chain, the Voice brought down from on High to speak to the Masses. He is supposed to be St. Peter, the Rock, the Cornerstone of the Church. He is considered holy, infallible, and yet his actions do not show any such thing. What they show is a man willing to keep the Church's name clear, while forsaking these children in the process.

 

[cultcross]

Actually, the letter that's being discussed by cultcross and Axiom above dealt with a request from the priest himself, via his bishop, to be defrocked (he asked for dispensation of the requirement of celibacy). Cardinal Ratzinger advised caution. He didn't say yes or no, but advocated further investigation before coming to a conclusion. An important difference.

Indeed, my apologies, I was working from the point of view that we were taking the letter at 'face value', that the Cardinal intended what Dawkins et al are saying he did (to keep the priest in the Church) - even if that were the case, I don't see a criminal case. It's not illegal to advocate not firing someone. Even if that person is a child molester.

Axiom, I think you're reading way too much into the letter. Right before the line about the universal good of the church (which he incidentally only said should be considered as a factor) he says the reasons for booting the priest were of "grave significance".
You have to look at this from the perspective of someone who thinks that faith in Christ is keeping people's souls from eternal damnation. It isn't exactly surprising that the maintenance of the Church is high on their priority list. But thtere is nothing in the letter that suggests the then Cardinal approved, sanctioned, condoned, or tried to cover up the priest's actions. The most he did was advocate a more careful review. Perhaps an unwise decision, I consider it suspect certainly, but you seem keen to indict the man as a child molester on the basis of it.

 

[Amaris]

Actually, the letter that's being discussed by cultcross and Axiom above dealt with a request from the priest himself, via his bishop, to be defrocked (he asked for dispensation of the requirement of celibacy). Cardinal Ratzinger advised caution. He didn't say yes or no, but advocated further investigation before coming to a conclusion. An important difference.

Indeed, my apologies, I was working from the point of view that we were taking the letter at 'face value', that the Cardinal intended what Dawkins et al are saying he did (to keep the priest in the Church) - even if that were the case, I don't see a criminal case. It's not illegal to advocate not firing someone. Even if that person is a child molester.

Axiom, I think you're reading way too much into the letter. Right before the line about the universal good of the church (which he incidentally only said should be considered as a factor) he says the reasons for booting the priest were of "grave significance".
You have to look at this from the perspective of someone who thinks that faith in Christ is keeping people's souls from eternal damnation. It isn't exactly surprising that the maintenance of the Church is high on their priority list. But thtere is nothing in the letter that suggests the then Cardinal approved, sanctioned, condoned, or tried to cover up the priest's actions. The most he did was advocate a more careful review. Perhaps an unwise decision, I consider it suspect certainly, but you seem keen to indict the man as a child molester on the basis of it.

I don't indict the Pope as a child molester, I indict him as someone who knew these child molesters were being moved about in the Church, and that he did nothing about it other than find ways to keep it within the Church. Does that strike you as something the Cornerstone of the Church should be doing?

 

[Lonemagpie]

As it turns out the story originally came from a Murdoch mouthpiece, and Dawkins says in reply that he's not trying to arrest the pope but find a legal grounds to get his visit cancelled.

Something like that, anyway...

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCo...ct-XVI,Marc-Horne----TimesOnline,page2#478580

 

[Rii]

IANAL, but, at least insofar as it relates to relations with other states, critical to statehood is recognition by other states as such. Whilst the UN may be a de facto barometer of and venue of expression for such, I suspect that de jure such recognition is bilateral in nature. The question, thus, would be whether the UK recognises the Vatican as a sovereign state, and I doubt that answering it is as simple as producing the document labelled 'List of Entities Recognised as Sovereign States by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom'.

 

[Amaris]

As it turns out the story originally came from a Murdoch mouthpiece, and Dawkins says in reply that he's not trying to arrest the pope but find a legal grounds to get his visit cancelled.

Something like that, anyway...

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCo...ct-XVI,Marc-Horne----TimesOnline,page2#478580

I should have figured as much, but that being said, I still think the Pope needs to address these issues now. To deny or hide these allegations even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is the action of an unethical man, and yes, if he was involved in moving about Priests because of molestation charges, then I would still want him to be taken into custody and questioned.

 

[Defiant]

The first two don't exist here. The third, I'd say it's wobbly at best. Even if we take the letter at total face value, that he was trying to stop the priest in question being defrocked despite knowing his criminal past, you'd have a hard time proving intent to aid and abet criminal action or evasion of justice. Being removed from the priesthood isn't a criminal sanction, so you can't 'aid and abet' someone to avoid that. You'd have to show that the then Cardinal intended to assist the priest in committing further crimes. A tough sell.

I don't think the letter itself is cause for alarm - it simply shows knowledge of what this guy was doing.

There's a bit better timeline here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/09/pope-benedict-stalled-chi_n_532073.html

The letter, signed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was typed in Latin and is part of years of correspondence between the diocese of Oakland and the Vatican about the proposed defrocking of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle, who pleaded no contest to misdemeanors involving child molestation in 1978.

OK - so initially, this is part of a proposed defrocking due to an incident that had already been made available to law enforcement - no crime there, for sure.

However, this is where it gets dicey:

The case then languished for four years at the Vatican before Ratzinger finally wrote to Oakland Bishop John Cummins. It was two more years before Kiesle was removed; during that time he continued to do volunteer work with children through the church.

now, the Vatican says he didn't do anything during the time it took them to remove him:

Lena, the Vatican attorney, said "paternal care" was a way of telling the bishop he was responsible for keeping Kiesle out of trouble. Lena said Kiesle was not accused of any child abuse in the 5 1/2 years it took for the Vatican to act on the laicization.

however:

Kiesle continued to volunteer with children, according to Maurine Behrend, who worked in the Oakland diocese's youth ministry office in the 1980s. After learning of his history, Behrend complained to church officials. When nothing was done she wrote a letter, which she showed to the AP.
"Obviously nothing has been done after EIGHT months of repeated notifications," she wrote. "How are we supposed to have confidence in the system when nothing is done? A simple phone call to the pastor from the bishop is all it would take."
She eventually confronted Cummins at a confirmation and Kiesle was gone a short time later, Behrend said.
Kiesle, who married after leaving the priesthood, was arrested and charged in 2002 with 13 counts of child molestation from the 1970s. All but two were thrown out after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a California law extending the statute of limitations.

and...

More than a half-dozen victims reached a settlement in 2005 with the Oakland diocese alleging Kiesle had molested them as young children.
"He admitted molesting many children and bragged that he was the Pied Piper and said he tried to molest every child that sat on his lap," said Lewis VanBlois, an attorney for six Kiesle victims who interviewed the former priest in prison. "When asked how many children he had molested over the years, he said 'tons.'"

Now, nothing here proves any specific intent to suppress knowledge of ongoing sexual abuse of children, but it's enough to investigate closely.


Clearly, people close to the situation believed something was going on, and they chose to deal within from within, rather than from without. Not all on the pope, for sure.


Whether or not there was any criminal intent to suppress evidence in order to avoid embarrassment of the church is anyone's guess at this point. There are inferences that can be drawn, and hindsight makes it easy to leap to conclusions.

However, where Dawkins is off is in venue - this all happened in California, not the UK. If anyone would investigate whether or not people within the Church knew sexual abuse was going on and hid it, it should be the Oakland DA's office, not the UK.

At least from what I've seen, there is no smoking gun, but a lot of smoke. I doubt a prosecution would be successful, barring a confession from someone... ...which I've heard is good fot the soul...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Before spouting nonsense about the pope and his alleged knowledge about abuse cases, do some research: there is actually no evidence that Pope Benedict has been involved with any abuse cases. But since many media outlets are now incapable of doing independent and objective research, many people are unaware of this.

Research first, than draw conclusions.

And perhaps we might try using terms which are not quite as 1) offensive, and 2) wildly inaccurate, as 'Panzerpope'.

 

[Mark de Vries]

First of all, Pingfah: I totally failed at reading your initial post. I quoted you when I wanted to reply in general (and I did so while being frustrated at the whole issue). My apologies.

And while I agree with Axiom when he says that anyone who is proven to be guilty of criminal acts should pay for them, I maintain that there is no such case to be made for the pope.

The Kiesle case is old and confusing. Did then-Cardinal Ratzinger misjudge the issue? Perhaps. Did Bishop Cummins make mistakes? Certainly: you see, he didn't need the Vatican to do anything for him: he could have acted himself. Bishops have that right. And why he then sent a letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has no jurisdiction in legal matters, is anyone's guess.

Finally, I think there is some confusion about the role of the pope. He is not some general who can command anyone in the Church, and in such legal matters infallibality plays no part. Only in dogmatic matters of faith can he claim infallibility. A pope is a bishop among bishops, prima inter pares (the first among equals). The Church has its organs, like a state, whicvh deal with various matters. Simply writing to the pope to do this or that, is like asking Obama to come fire the fraudulent office worker in your company. It's not going to happen.

Not that the pope is powerless: in Ireland we see that bishops stepped down (and I would not be surprised if they did so on the pope's urging - but he'll do so behind closed doors), and dioceses and seminaries are going to be turned upside down in a so-called Apostolic Visitation. These are not empty gestures.

Yes, the pope can be held accountable for his actions: can he be accountable for desiring further investigation in the Kiesle case, citing concerns for the good of the local parish where Kiesle was working (and for Kiesle himself)? The worst the ppe can be accused of in that case is a misjudgement of a situation where he had no jurisdiction.

 

[-Brett-]

I don't see what's so "barking mad" about wanting the pope to answer for his suspected crimes the same way anyone else would.

I wish Dawkins luck.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Yes, the pope can be held accountable for his actions: can he be accountable for desiring further investigation in the Kiesle case, citing concerns for the good of the local parish where Kiesle was working (and for Kiesle himself)? The worst the ppe can be accused of in that case is a misjudgement of a situation where he had no jurisdiction.

Why not let a court decide about that?

I'm sure a comfy VIP cell in some British prison can be found to accomodate the pope in the meantime.

 

[Deckerd]

Nobody's putting him in a cell. I doubt this action will get very far but it is entertaining.

 

[iguana_tonante]

But but, anyone who even dares to question the dear Pope is "a loon", "barking mad", "blinded by irrational hatred".

I guess some people don't take questions very well.

 

[captcalhoun]

i say we frag the vatican and done with it.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Nobody's putting him in a cell. I doubt this action will get very far but it is entertaining.

No, of course not, but one can dream, right?

 

[Amaris]

Well, Stephen Fry sums up my own thoughts on this whole issue here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbvr0m_the-intelligence²-debate-stephen-fr_shortfilms

I highly recommend watching the whole video.

 

[Roger Wilco]

^^
That's a tremendous pwning.

eta: haha, I love his food analogy, spot-on.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Well, Stephen Fry sums up my own thoughts on this whole issue here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbvr0m_the-intelligence²-debate-stephen-fr_shortfilms

I highly recommend watching the whole video.

Thanks for that. Good video.

I never knew that the Catholic church would at one time put people on the rack for simply owning a Bible in English!
That's (CENSORED) up!