Dawkins & Hitchens plan to arrest Pope.

Irlandese

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

:rolleyes: I'll put it another way, they did all this 6 years before Herr Ratzinger bothered to reply to the Bishop and 8 years before they defrocked this paedophile. Ratzinger refused to take action sooner because he put the good of the Church over child protection and basic human decency.



I'll repeat what I said earlier: the strength and weaknesses of sentencing law is a totally separate issue. I think everyone agrees that was pretty weak. It wouldn't happen today but there was at least a conviction and supervision of this man. I do not know when the record was expunged, was it 10 years later? I don't know. I don't think you know either.

The weaknesses in sentencing law do not excuse Ratzinger actively facilitating child molesters and protecting them from the wishes and concerns of their own Bishops for the "good of the Universal Church". He is a disgrace. The fact is the lay authorities arrested and sentenced this man and put him under probationary supervision for a number of years after his crime. This is contrasted with the Vatican which literally refused to lift a finger against this man. There is absolutely no comparison and absolutely no justification or mitigation of Ratzinger's action here.

We get this time and time again with the RCC Church and it's blind followers. "It's the Jews and their media who are responsible for this, we won't bow to these accusations. Other faiths and atheists have their abusers too you know ". It's frightening, it completely misses the point. You wonder what is still being facilitated in 3rd world countries.

Have you seen the SLATE take with Hichens, just now?
Is something stirring in the ole USA on this?


"We Can't Let the Pope Decide Who's a CriminalBringing priestly offenders and the church's enablers to justice.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, April 12, 2010, at 10:47 AM ET

In 2002, according to devout Catholic columnist Ross Douthat, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger spoke the following words to an audience in Spain:

I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign ... to discredit the church.



On April 10, the New York Times—the apparent center of this "planned campaign"—reprinted a copy of a letter personally signed by Ratzinger in 1985. The letter urged lenience in the case of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle, who had tied up and sexually tormented two small boys on church property in California. Kiesle's superiors had written to Ratzinger's office in Rome, beseeching him to remove the criminal from the priesthood. The man who is now his holiness the pope was full of urgent moral advice in response. "The good of the Universal Church," he wrote, should be uppermost in the mind. It should be understood that "particularly regarding the young age" of Father Kiesle, there might be great "detriment" caused "within the community of Christ's faithful" if he were to be removed. The good father was then aged 38. His victims—not that their tender ages of 11 and 13 seem to have mattered—were children. In the ensuing decades, Kiesle went on to ruin the lives of several more children and was finally jailed by the secular authorities on a felony molestation charge in 2004. All this might have been avoided if he had been handed over to justice right away and if the Oakland diocese had called the police rather than written to the office in Rome where it was Ratzinger's job to muffle and suppress such distressing questions.
Quantcast

Contrast this to the even more appalling case of the school for deaf children in Wisconsin where the Rev. Lawrence Murphy was allowed unhindered access to more than 200 unusually defenseless victims. Again the same pattern: repeated petitions from the local diocese to have the criminal "unfrocked" (an odd term when you think about it) met with stony indifference from Ratzinger's tightly run bureaucracy. Finally a begging letter to Ratzinger from the filthy Father Murphy himself, complaining of the frailty of his health and begging to be buried with full priestly honors, in his frock. Which he was. At last, a human plea not falling on deaf ears! (You should pardon the expression.)

Pope Benedict. Click image to expand.Pope Benedict XVISo in one case a child rapist escaped judgment and became an enabled reoffender because he was too young. In the next, a child rapist was sheltered after a career of sex torture of disabled children because he was too old! Such compassion.

It must be noted, also, that all the letters from diocese to Ratzinger and from Ratzinger to diocese were concerned only with one question: Can this hurt Holy Mother Church? It was as if the children were irrelevant or inconvenient (as with the case of the raped boys in Ireland forced to sign confidentiality agreements by the man who is still the country's cardinal). Note, next, that there was a written, enforced, and consistent policy of avoiding contact with the law. And note, finally, that there was a preconceived Ratzinger propaganda program of blaming the press if any of the criminal conduct or obstruction of justice ever became known.

The obscene culmination of this occurred on Good Friday, when the pope sat through a sermon delivered by an underling in which the exposure of his church's crimes was likened to persecution and even—this was a gorgeous detail—to the pogroms against the Jews. I have never before been accused of taking part in a pogrom or lynching, let alone joining a mob that is led by raped deaf children, but I'm proud to take part in this one.

The keyword is Law. Ever since the church gave refuge to Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston to spare him the inconvenience of answering questions under oath, it has invited the metastasis of this horror. And now the tumor has turned up just where you might have expected—moving from the bosom to the very head of the church. And by what power or right is the fugitive cardinal shielded? Only by the original agreement between Benito Mussolini and the papacy that created the pseudo-state of Vatican City in the Lateran Pact of 1929, Europe's last remaining monument to the triumph of Fascism. This would be bad enough, except that Ratzinger himself is now exposed as being personally as well as institutionally responsible for obstructing justice and protecting and enabling pederasts.

One should not blame only the church here. Where was American law enforcement during the decades when children were prey? Where was international law while the Vatican became a place of asylum and a source of protection for those who licensed or carried out the predation? Page through any of the reports of child-rape and torture from Ireland, Australia, the United States, Germany—and be aware that there is much worse to come. Where is it written that the Roman Catholic Church is the judge in its own case? Above or beyond the law? Able to use private courts? Allowed to use funds donated by the faithful to pay hush money to the victims or their families?

There are two choices. We can swallow the shame, roll up the First Amendment, and just admit that certain heinous crimes against innocent citizens are private business or are not crimes if they are committed by priests and excused by popes. Or perhaps we can shake off the awful complicity that reports this ongoing crime as a "problem" for the church and not as an outrage to the victims and to the judicial system. Isn't there one district attorney or state attorney general in America who can decide to represent the children? Nobody in Eric Holder's vaunted department of no-immunity justice? If not, then other citizens will have to approach the bench. In London, as already reported by the Sunday Times and the Press Association, some experienced human-rights lawyers will be challenging Ratzinger's right to land in Britain with immunity in September. If he gets away with it, then he gets away with it, and the faithful can be proud of their supreme leader. But this we can promise, now that his own signature has been found on Father Kiesle's permission to rape: There will be only one subject of conversation until Ratzinger calls off his visit, and only one subject if he decides to try to go through with it. In either event, he will be remembered for only one thing long after he is dead.

."

http://www.slate.com/id/2250557/

Agricola

^^^

God I love that old alcoholic!

prinz

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

:rolleyes: I'll put it another way, they did all this 6 years before Herr Ratzinger bothered to reply to the Bishop and 8 years before they defrocked this paedophile. Ratzinger refused to take action sooner because he put the good of the Church over child protection and basic human decency..

If you are interested in timelines then the original abuse case and the case of the defrocking of Kiesle was sent to the Vatican while Cardinal Ratzinger was still holed up in Munich as cardinal there. He had at that stage nothing whatsoever to do with investigating or punishing priests.
Interesting to note that Ratzinger would have been in a role to act in November 1981, the same month the Vatican got on the case.


I'll repeat what I said earlier: the strength and weaknesses of sentencing law is a totally separate issue. I think everyone agrees that was pretty weak. It wouldn't happen today but there was at least a conviction and supervision of this man. I do not know when the record was expunged, was it 10 years later? I don't know. I don't think you know either.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

The weaknesses in sentencing law do not excuse Ratzinger actively facilitating child molesters and protecting them from the wishes and concerns of their own Bishops for the "good of the Universal Church". He is a disgrace...

You are right they do not excuse it. But will Dawkins' QC buddy be planning a case against those involved in giving simple probation to a double child molester allowing him to continue his abuse later?

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

This is contrasted with the Vatican which literally refused to lift a finger against this man. There is absolutely no comparison and absolutely no justification or mitigation of Ratzinger's action here..

Can you point out where the Vatican refused to lift a finger? It took an inordinate amount of time true but I still haven't seen anything showing the Vatican refusing to take action in this case. I see a letter stating that more time is needed.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

We get this time and time again with the RCC Church and it's blind followers. "It's the Jews and their media who are responsible for this, we won't bow to these accusations. Other faiths and atheists have their abusers too you know "...

Blah, blah blah. I presume you are referring to a retired Italian Bishop and the accusations that he blamed the Jews... guess what, he didn't. He has categorically denied making any such remarks.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You wonder what is still being facilitated in 3rd world countries.

I know what is still being facilitated in 3rd world countries. Child abuse, child slavery, murders etc. Yet here we are still buying Coca-Cola, allowing it advertising space etc etc. Has Dawkins ever lent his name to a campaign to have the Coca-Cola upper management arrested?

mloc

prinz wrote: »

He has categorically denied making any such remarks.

Oh, in that case...

youcrazyjesus!

prinz wrote: »

Interesting to note that Ratzinger would have been in a role to act in November 1981, the same month the Vatican got on the case.

So he would have been in a position to act but didn't do so until 6 years later. Great.

You are right they do not excuse it. But will Dawkins' QC buddy be planning a case against those involved in giving simple probation to a double child molester allowing him to continue his abuse later?

You think they should bring a case against those involved in arresting him, charging him, securing a guilty plea, jailing him and then placing him under post release supervision for a number of years afterwards? No I don't think they should do that. You're also spectacularly missing the point. There are lay authorities who can, will and do act immediately in such cases. There is absolutely no comparison. To continue to argue the opposite is mind boggling.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: the strength and weaknesses of sentencing law is a totally separate issue. I think everyone agrees that was pretty weak. It wouldn't happen today but there was at least a conviction and supervision of this man. I do not know when the record was expunged, was it 10 years later? I don't know. I don't think you know either.

Can you point out where the Vatican refused to lift a finger?

They didn't bother replying for years even though the local Bishop was, by the standards of the RCC in dealing with abuse, frantically looking for an answer. That's what I call refusing to lift a finger. They even managed to lose the files at one point!

Blah, blah blah. I presume you are referring to a retired Italian Bishop and the accusations that he blamed the Jews... guess what, he didn't. He has categorically denied making any such remarks.

They blame the media, the Jews, the enemies of the Church (they really mean the Jewish media) and now they're blaming homosexuality. Scum of the earth.

Of course he denied it. :rolleyes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7095471.ece

I know what is still being facilitated in 3rd world countries. Child abuse, child slavery, murders etc. Yet here we are still buying Coca-Cola, allowing it advertising space etc etc. Has Dawkins ever lent his name to a campaign to have the Coca-Cola upper management arrested?

Spurious logic. Because somebody hasn't investigated other crimes they cannot investigate this one. What a load of nonsense.

rubadub

prinz wrote: »

Has Dawkins ever lent his name to a campaign to have the Coca-Cola upper management arrested?

Probably not, have you? its a bit ridiculous saying that, you could go on listing things he could campaign about ad nauseum, why is Dawkins not campaigning to arrest the graffiti artist & vandals in my area, the man is scum :rolleyes:

prinz

mloc wrote: »

Oh, in that case...

Well plenty of people were at pains to point out what Dawkins said on this thread were they not. See the thread title again. See how easy it is to get things wrong when you credit certain things to certain people. If it's ok for Dawkins to deny he said he was going to arrest the Pope, why is it not ok for the Cardinal in question to deny he made any such quote abot Jews? Consistency.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

So he would have been in a position to act but didn't do so until 6 years later. Great..

They asked for more information and needed more time. An appalling amount of time granted, but it's incorrect to claim they 'did nothing'.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You think they should bring a case against those involved in arresting him, charging him, securing a guilty plea, jailing him and then placing him under post release supervision for a number of years afterwards? No I don't think they should do that...

Well you think they should bring a case against those involved in defrocking him and kicking him out of the RCC

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

No I don't think they should do that. You're also spectacularly missing the point. There are lay authorities who can, will and do act immediately in such cases. There is absolutely no comparison. To continue to argue the opposite is mind boggling....

Yes, there are also clerical authorities who can do likewise. The Vatican doesn't decide who does what in a diocese, it was up to the local Bishop to ensure this man had no access to children again. The only Vatican involvement is to decide on the defrocking, which they did.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

It wouldn't happen today but there was at least a conviction and supervision of this man. I do not know when the record was expunged, was it 10 years later? I don't know. I don't think you know either....

Do you think the abuse and cover up would happen today?

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

That's what I call refusing to lift a finger....

And just what do you think should have been done?

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

They even managed to lose the files at one point!...

Do you realise how many Catholics there are and how much paperwork is submitted to the Vatican?

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

They blame the media, the Jews, the enemies of the Church (they really mean the Jewish media) and now they're blaming homosexuality. Scum of the earth. Of course he denied it. :rolleyes:...

How do you know 'what they really mean'?

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Spurious logic. Because somebody hasn't investigated other crimes they cannot investigate this one. What a load of nonsense.

Nope, investigate away.I hope Dawkins takes being called a hypocrit like a man.

prinz

rubadub wrote: »

Probably not, have you?

I boycott Coca-Cola yes. Do you? People use the fact that Ratzinger was drafted into the Hitler Youth as a kid as some sort of insult against the man. The same people would have no problem buying their Coke and whatnot despite the fact that Coca-Cola operated plants in Nazi held lands profiting from the use of slave labour. Who has the greater case there?

rubadub wrote: »

its a bit ridiculous saying that, you could go on listing things he could campaign about ad nauseum, why is Dawkins not campaigning to arrest the graffiti artist & vandals in my area, the man is scum :rolleyes:

Indeed you could, my point however is not about why isn't Dawkins doing x, y or z. My point is that Dawkins has no more interest in helping the victims of clerical abuse or righting the wrongs of the RCC than a chimp up in Dublin Zoo.

Irlandese

Just on time-lines etc.


http://kasamaproject.org/2010/04/12/gary-leupp-an-incomplete-timeline-of-the-popes-cover-up/

"The Church confronting a snowballing scandal about sex abuse revelations reacted by instinct, attempting to insulate itself from outside examination. Ratzinger, the son of a policeman, realized the requirements of national laws to report cases of sex abuse to civil authorities. But “considering the good of the Universal Church” he declined to do so and indeed apparently presided over an effort to contain the problem, in-house, during the ‘80s and ‘90s. One need not impute to Ratzinger any personal stake in pedophilia. Let us take him at his word that he finds the phenomenon of priestly child abuse “filth.” But it was only the scandal breaking out in the U.S. press, causing numerous victims to come forward with their stories, producing lawsuits that financially strapped the U.S. church, that caused the Vatican to alter its policy of studiously shielding priests from local police authority.

I myself am not a big fan of the contemporary state and can understand the desire of a religious community to remain apart from it, and to want to handle its own problems internally without interference and to avoid embarrassment. But what the “Universal Church” has apparently been doing for its own “good” is to encourage a culture of impunity only modified under the pressure of lawsuits and damning media exposure. Mr. Ratzinger as pontiff has scurried to cover his papal ass by pretty pronouncements such as the recent pastoral letter to the Irish people in which he encourages Irish church officials “in addressing cases of child abuse, [to] continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence.” As though this had been long-standing Vatican policy!

Ratzinger conducts a devious slight-of-hand, feigning transparency and legal cooperation to obscure a history of concealment of egregious sex abuse instances “for the good of the Universal Church.” That’s the real history here, now requiring him to insist on diplomatic immunity so as not to appear in U.S. courtrooms.

Irlandese

Ireland,
4,752 priests for a population of 4 million.

"Floodgates opened for Irish complaints that have topped 15,000 in this country of 4 million. " taken from;
http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2010/03/child-abuse-claims-sweep-catholic.html

Ratzinger wonders about the rate of abusing priests?
He thinks it might be as low as 1% ?
Busy lads !

Otacon

Irlandese wrote: »

Busy lads !

A regretable pun, I assume?

:pac:

aidan24326

Irlandese wrote: »

Ireland,
4,752 priests for a population of 4 million.

"Floodgates opened for Irish complaints that have topped 15,000 in this country of 4 million. " taken from;
http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2010/03/child-abuse-claims-sweep-catholic.html

Ratzinger wonders about the rate of abusing priests?
He thinks it might be as low as 1% ?
Busy lads !

Even if it is 'as low as 1%', if your figure of 4,752 is correct that would still mean approx 450-500 abusing priests in Ireland alone. And who's to say the real figure might even be higher? 15,000 individual complaints would suggest that it probably is. (though it wasn't just priests doing the abusing, the Christian Brothers, The Brothers of Charity, the nuns etc were all involved as well)

Irlandese

aidan24326 wrote: »

Even if it is 'as low as 1%', if your figure of 4,752 is correct that would still mean approx 450-500 abusing priests in Ireland alone. And who's to say the real figure might even be higher? 15,000 individual complaints would suggest that it probably is. (though it wasn't just priests doing the abusing, the Christian Brothers, The Brothers of Charity, the nuns etc were all involved as well)

It is actually closer to 15 to 18% of those involved in schools, youth services and residential settings that cater for young people. according to the opinions of a lot of professionals working in the field.
I had pulled some stuff together for an earlier thread, that unfortunately for us was amalgamated into one popped into another forum which I will not name or return to, to get it back !

vodafoneproblem

Irlandese wrote: »

It is actually closer to 15 to 18% of those involved in schools, youth services and residential settings that cater for young people. according to the opinions of a lot of professionals working in the field.
I had pulled some stuff together for an earlier thread, that unfortunately for us was amalgamated into one popped into another forum which I will not name or return to, to get it back !

Do you mean the Christianity forum? Which rips up not only Dawkins' tgd book but also his scientific credentials? I have to laugh at him naming his latest book "The Greatest Show on Earth". More like "The Greatest Showman on Earth"...

Irlandese

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Do you mean the Christianity forum? Which rips up not only Dawkins' tgd book but also his scientific credentials? I have to laugh at him naming his latest book "The Greatest Show on Earth". More like "The Greatest Showman on Earth"...

Hello? Vodaphone problem? Glad you have no problem with my stats but what has my post that you just somewhat bizarely replied to, have to do with this Dawkins fellow?
I see 99% of your posts seem to be about him, but, frankly, apart from seeing you cited him as not being nice to you when you list him as one of the celebrities you have met,
what is your problemo? Did it upset you that he didn't think you were a genius?
Did he smell? Wear white socks? Look vaguely jewish? Support Man United?
A polite suggestion? Maybe get a life or another life's topic, friend !

vodafoneproblem

Irlandese wrote: »

Hello? Vodaphone problem? Glad you have no problem with my stats but what has my post that you just somewhat bizarely replied to, have to do with this Dawkins fellow?
I see 99% of your posts seem to be about him, but, frankly, apart from seeing you cited him as not being nice to you when you list him as one of the celebrities you have met,
what is your problemo? Did it upset you that he didn't think you were a genius?
Did he smell? Wear white socks? Look vaguely jewish? Support Man United?
A polite suggestion? Maybe get a life or another life's topic, friend !

Lol, a stalker. Oh dear. There was somewhat cryptic joking going on in that post. If you'd read the rest of that thread ya might have got the idea that some posts had that. FYI, I never met RD. I did meet Paul McGrath, though, and he was the nicest celeb I've ever met. Happy?

ScumLord

prinz wrote: »

They asked for more information and needed more time. An appalling amount of time granted, but it's incorrect to claim they 'did nothing'.

6 year, six YEARS. That's not taking time to validate and dot the i's, it's brushing the problem under the carpet and hoping it goes away. If they didn't get caught the church would have done nothing. I think that's a fair assumption to make, these are old men, if they truly cared they wouldn't be waiting around for years and years so by the time the **** hits the fan they're either senile or dead.