Pope Benedict a "leering old villian in a frock"

[nw843x]

Not sure if this has been posted yet -

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341


A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; 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: in short, exactly the right man for the job.


As always, Mr. Dawkins hits the nail on the head.

[Safe-Keeper]

Luther would be rolling in his grave.

[Sledge]

Can't argue with anything said there.

[Darat]

Luther would be rolling in his grave.

I think he would be LOLing in his grave!

[Safe-Keeper]

Some of the comments at the original site are pretty disturbing, too. Such as the people accusing Dawkins of being too hostile... excuse me, but we just happen to be discussing the organized, global cover-up of uncountable number of rapes of children. Why on earth shouldn't we allowed to express outrage? Because the offenders just happen to be a major religious organization?

Read the comment starting with "Keep it classy Richard":boggled::boggled:

[sinclairmcevoy]

Some of the comments at the original site are pretty disturbing, too. Such as the people accusing Dawkins of being too hostile... excuse me, but we just happen to be discussing the organized, global cover-up of uncountable number of rapes of children. Why on earth shouldn't we allowed to express outrage? Because the offenders just happen to be a major religious organization?Pretty much.

[Safe-Keeper]

This sums it up nicely:

The thing is, this is mild rhetoric compared to what we see directed at pedophiles in general. Our political relationship with pedophilia is bizarre. When individuals engage in child rape, we prosecute them to the full extent of the law and restrict where they can live and some people even support using the death penalty on them. But when it's the Catholic Church engaging in mass-scale institutionally-tolerated child rape, verbal attacks like Dawkins' here are controversial all of the sudden. Somewhere in the debate over pedophilia, there must be a legal middle ground where the bit-too-kindly old priest and the creepy child-stalking pervert can be given the same reasonable level of punishment.

[Piscivore]

I'm just waiting for Chris Hansen to catch a Cardinal.

[AvalonXQ]

I'm just waiting for Chris Hansen to catch a Cardinal.

Won't happen. No need to go on the internet when parents give you their children to look after.
Blech.

[RobRoy]

I think he would be LOLing in his grave!

I doubt it. His battery wouldn't have survived all this time for him to text it.

But to the point, I quite agree. It's outrageous how John Paul II and Benedict have handled this situation. I have to assume, unfortunately, that this has been going on not just for decades but centuries. Priests have abused their positions in the past, much to the detriment of their flocks and their supposed morality. This is just the latest to come to light.

How unfortunate for a faith that is supposed to be based on the ultimate of love and sacrifice.

[Piscivore]

How unfortunate for a faith that is supposed to be based on the ultimate of love and sacrifice.

The situation is consistent with the ethic- the priests "love", the kids sacrifice.

[AvalonXQ]

How unfortunate for a faith that is supposed to be based on the ultimate of love and sacrifice.

It fits, though.
I mean, the basic religious idea here is that we're all filthy sinners, and we're all supposed to have every opportunity to repent of what we've done and redeem ourselves.
So understand the perspective of the Cardinal. Your priest seems truly penitent for the wrong he's done and wants to reform and do good. And so you want to believe him, you want to help him redeem himself and do better.
Overlooking wrongdoing is totally consistent with Christianity and Christian teaching; there's nothing hypocritical there at all.
But the problem is that these men aren't operating in a vacuum. These decisions can seriously and permanently harm children, some of the most vulnerable members of our society. And where harm to children is involved, we find it unconscionable to give more opportunities to do harm -- second (and third, and forth, ad naseum -- blech!) chances just aren't reasonable.
The administrators in charge of these priests really screwed up -- because they forgot that their concern is for the flock first, and the shepherds second.
But a Christian church practicing forgiveness? There's nothing ill-fitting about that at all.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Some of the comments at the original site are pretty disturbing, too. Such as the people accusing Dawkins of being too hostile... excuse me, but we just happen to be discussing the organized, global cover-up of uncountable number of rapes of children. Why on earth shouldn't we allowed to express outrage? Because the offenders just happen to be a major religious organization?


And what's even more ironic is that Catholics would usually be the first to be outraged at pedophilia. When a bus driver or teacher abuses a 9-year-old boy or 12-year-old girl, they are the first to recommend execution or castration for him.

When it's a pedophile in a black frock, however, they defend him! Defend him! DEFEND HIM!

[Safe-Keeper]

But a Christian church practicing forgiveness? There's nothing ill-fitting about that at all. ...until you remember that they don't preach forgiveness for minor offenses such as having children outside of marriage, being homosexual, or using contraception. According to Penn and Teller's ******** show (not the most objective source, I know), rape victims in the Catholic Church must sign an oath to remain completely silent about the offense until well into adulthood -- on the penalty of excommunication.

If you're caught abusing children, you're given counselling and transferred to another church. When victims try to press charges against them, they are excommunicated.

Beautiful.

[Elizabeth I]

It fits, though.
I mean, the basic religious idea here is that we're all filthy sinners, and we're all supposed to have every opportunity to repent of what we've done and redeem ourselves.
So understand the perspective of the Cardinal. Your priest seems truly penitent for the wrong he's done and wants to reform and do good. And so you want to believe him, you want to help him redeem himself and do better.
Overlooking wrongdoing is totally consistent with Christianity and Christian teaching; there's nothing hypocritical there at all.
But the problem is that these men aren't operating in a vacuum. These decisions can seriously and permanently harm children, some of the most vulnerable members of our society. And where harm to children is involved, we find it unconscionable to give more opportunities to do harm -- second (and third, and forth, ad naseum -- blech!) chances just aren't reasonable.
The administrators in charge of these priests really screwed up -- because they forgot that their concern is for the flock first, and the shepherds second.
But a Christian church practicing forgiveness? There's nothing ill-fitting about that at all.

It annoys me that very few people seem to be seriously discussing the possibility of criminal charges. I don't care who these people are, they're not above the law.

(And I know that in some cases the statute of limitations has run, but many jurisdictions have amended the statutes to allow adult who were victims of abuse in childhood to press charges.)

[AvalonXQ]

It annoys me that very few people seem to be seriously discussing the possibility of criminal charges. I don't care who these people are, they're not above the law.
Agreement. Jailworthy offenses = send them to jail.

(And I know that in some cases the statute of limitations has run, but many jurisdictions have amended the statutes to allow adult who were victims of abuse in childhood to press charges.)
Disagreement. Don't like the idea of changing a law ex poste facto. If you want to adjust the statute for crimes going forward, that's fine.
But also realize that the main purpose for the statute of limitations is that facts get muddied as time goes on. We don't want to be in the position of convicting someone of a crime from evidence and memories pieced together 20 years down the road.

[Darat]

Serious crimes should have no time limits for prosecution - it should simply be based on what evidence is available.

[quixotecoyote]

Serious crimes should have no time limits for prosecution - it should simply be based on what evidence is available.

I'd like to see this.

I'd also like to see eyewitness evidence placed in proper context regarding reliability.

[RobRoy]

It fits, though.
I mean, the basic religious idea here is that we're all filthy sinners, and we're all supposed to have every opportunity to repent of what we've done and redeem ourselves.
So understand the perspective of the Cardinal. Your priest seems truly penitent for the wrong he's done and wants to reform and do good. And so you want to believe him, you want to help him redeem himself and do better.
Overlooking wrongdoing is totally consistent with Christianity and Christian teaching; there's nothing hypocritical there at all.
But the problem is that these men aren't operating in a vacuum. These decisions can seriously and permanently harm children, some of the most vulnerable members of our society. And where harm to children is involved, we find it unconscionable to give more opportunities to do harm -- second (and third, and forth, ad naseum -- blech!) chances just aren't reasonable.
The administrators in charge of these priests really screwed up -- because they forgot that their concern is for the flock first, and the shepherds second.
But a Christian church practicing forgiveness? There's nothing ill-fitting about that at all.

Except that this is the Catholic Church, and there is no “overlooking wrongdoing” or blanket forgiveness. There is sin, there is repentance of the sinner, who is supposed to accept that they’ve done wrong, wants to change and seek forgiveness, and there is penance set by the Church. That doesn’t seem to be happening in these cases. Instead, there is shuffling of the priest, hiding the facts of the matter, lying and denying that they may have occurred or lying and denying the level to which they’ve occurred, and going along with standard policies as if business-as-usual was getting the job done. When the facts do come out, it’s been a constant game of damage control, rather than admitting wrong-doing and seeking forgiveness. The entire manner in which the Catholic Church has acted over these crimes is contrary to the way in which their preached system of repentance is supposed to function.

Further, forgiveness in the Catholic Church is only supposed to occur when the sinner agrees they’ve done wrong, and also agrees to never do that thing again. That’s clearly not been the case in these priest abuse cases.

So yeah, where everyone keeps forgetting that their first duty is to save the laity, and instead starts trying to save themselves, the Church is acting contrary to its stated mission. It doesn’t fit at all with what the Catholic Church has been preaching.

[dafydd]

Won't happen. No need to go on the internet when parents give you their children to look after.
Blech.

They would be safe with me,I'm not a catholic priest.

[MattusMaximus]

More damaging than anything to the RCC is this inane notion of "papal infallibility" that the Rat in the Hat (Ratzinger) will cloak himself in. That and the fact that the Vatican will close ranks to defend him and the "infallibility" of the papal office at all costs. Such is the nature of cognitive dissonance.

Fortunately, the rest of the world will see through this nonsense, as long as we keep making waves. We should all keep up the harsh (though, imo, not harsh enough) criticism of the Vatican and their crimes. Only by shining the light of free inquiry into the dark crevasses of the Vatican can we expose the rats.

The RCC only has itself to blame for this mess. It's up to them to clean it up, if they've got the balls or the integrity to do so.

ETA: Of course, I don't expect the Vatican to reverse course on the papal "infallibility" thing anytime soon. Because if they do so, then the whole deck of cards could come tumbling down. The next thing you know, devout Catholics might start thinking for themselves on issues of birth control, abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, condoms, AIDS, etc.

[MattusMaximus]

...until you remember that they don't preach forgiveness for minor offenses such as having children outside of marriage, being homosexual, or using contraception. According to Penn and Teller's ******** show (not the most objective source, I know), rape victims in the Catholic Church must sign an oath to remain completely silent about the offense until well into adulthood -- on the penalty of excommunication.

If you're caught abusing children, you're given counselling and transferred to another church. When victims try to press charges against them, they are excommunicated.

Beautiful.

Blame the victim :mad:

Nice...

Jesus would be proud, wouldn't he?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not sure if this has been posted yet -

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341



As always, Mr. Dawkins hits the nail on the head.I was sure this was going to be a Hitchen's quote. :)

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

...until you remember that they don't preach forgiveness for minor offenses such as having children outside of marriage, being homosexual, or using contraception. According to Penn and Teller's ******** show (not the most objective source, I know), rape victims in the Catholic Church must sign an oath to remain completely silent about the offense until well into adulthood -- on the penalty of excommunication.

If you're caught abusing children, you're given counselling and transferred to another church. When victims try to press charges against them, they are excommunicated.

Beautiful.


And there's also the fact that forgiveness is not their's to give!

The victim wants to forgive the pedophile who abused him/her- great. That's a commendable example of Christian charity and, from the secular point of view, a very big hearted and courageous act that deserves a lot of admiration. The victim's family forgives him, that's great as well.

The pervert's bosses want to "forgive" him? Excuse me, he didn't rape you...he didn't rape your son or daughter...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Blame the victim :mad:

Nice...

Jesus would be proud, wouldn't he?It does seem as though the Catholic Church leadership views the whole thing as trivial misconduct, doesn't it. :(

[Safe-Keeper]

And there's also the fact that forgiveness is not their's to give!That, too. I personally do not like the forgiveness part of Christianity. Let's say I do something horrible to a good friend of mine. What does it matter if God or some random priest forgives me? Sure, if you feel guilty and want to make amends it's nice to have someone voice their support, but forgiveness is something that can only come from the person you hurt.

I can just about understand it for God (given the whole idea of sin, or every crime committed being a crime against both your victim and God), but priests?

[AvalonXQ]

I can just about understand it for God (given the whole idea of sin, or every crime committed being a crime against both your victim and God), but priests?

Biblical Christian theology doesn't allow for the forgiveness of priests. God forgives you because you sin against God, and your brother forgives you because you sin against your brother.
The whole intercessory clergy thing isn't Biblical; it came later.

[coalesce]

I'm just waiting for Chris Hansen to catch a Cardinal.

Why don't you have a seat? Have a seat right over here.

What are you doing here?

Michael

[Achán hiNidráne]

The whole intercessory clergy thing isn't Biblical; it came later.

So...

[Morrigan]

Great article by Mr. Dawkins. I love those kinds of powerful smackdowns.

[CurtC]

More damaging than anything to the RCC is this inane notion of "papal infallibility" that the Rat in the Hat (Ratzinger) will cloak himself in.

I've never been a Catholic, but my understanding is that the infallibility of the Pope applies only if he is giving a speech ex cathedra, which is a fairly rare event.

[ddt]

So understand the perspective of the Cardinal. Your priest seems truly penitent for the wrong he's done and wants to reform and do good. And so you want to believe him, you want to help him redeem himself and do better.
Overlooking wrongdoing is totally consistent with Christianity and Christian teaching; there's nothing hypocritical there at all.
That's utter ********. The RCC has been handing over heretics to the secular authorities for burning at the stake for centuries.

It's everybody's duty - morally or legally - to report crimes they know of to the (secular) authorities. The RCC hierarchy has known for decades of the endemic child abuse, and no-one from the RCC has stepped forward to the police about the cases they knew. That's criminally negligent. In particular Ratzinger himself knew of at least one case when he was archbishop in Munich, and what did he do? He transferred the priest in question regularly to another parish. That's accessory in my book. I'm afraid the statute on that has run out though.

Serious crimes should have no time limits for prosecution - it should simply be based on what evidence is available.
I agree with you there, but it's not always the case. Germany, e.g., has a statute of 30 years on murder.

But I do hope indeed that somewhere, a public prosecutor will try to prosecute him (and others high-up in the RCC hierarchy), head of state or not.

[MattusMaximus]

I've never been a Catholic, but my understanding is that the infallibility of the Pope applies only if he is giving a speech ex cathedra, which is a fairly rare event.

Yeah, sure. I think in practice it's quite a different thing.

[RobRoy]

Yeah, sure. I think in practice it's quite a different thing.

Do you mean that the ego of the man who has been raised to the Papal See is such that it doesn’t matter if he’s speaking ex cathedra or not?

Otherwise, CurtC is quite correct. It is extremely rare for the Pope to speak ex cathedra. The last time was sixty or so years ago in regards to the Assumption of Mary. Papal infallibility also doesn’t render the Pope himself infallible. He remains human and can still sin, as Benedict is clearly showing us, and showing us, and showing us . . .

I heard the report yesterday regarding the RCC’s knowledge of child abuse going back to the 1960s (though I’m sure it goes much, much further than that). Made me rather ill to have it spelled out so obviously.

Short of a complete scouring of the RCC hierarchy, and revision of some of its doctrines regarding priests and their authority, there’s really no way they can make this right.

[pgwenthold]

Biblical Christian theology doesn't allow for the forgiveness of priests.

Did Jesus not say to his apostles, "If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them"?

Given that the church considers priests to be along the line of apostolic succession, then this directive would apply to them, too.

I'm not saying it's not a debatable argument, but that you are absolutely wrong to say that the bible "doesn't allow for" it.

Maybe YOUR interpretation of the bible doesn't allow for it, but that is merely dueling interpretations.

[pgwenthold]

Do you mean that the ego of the man who has been raised to the Papal See is such that it doesn’t matter if he’s speaking ex cathedra or not?

Otherwise, CurtC is quite correct. It is extremely rare for the Pope to speak ex cathedra. The last time was sixty or so years ago in regards to the Assumption of Mary. Papal infallibility also doesn’t render the Pope himself infallible. He remains human and can still sin, as Benedict is clearly showing us, and showing us, and showing us . . .

I heard the report yesterday regarding the RCC’s knowledge of child abuse going back to the 1960s (though I’m sure it goes much, much further than that). Made me rather ill to have it spelled out so obviously.

Short of a complete scouring of the RCC hierarchy, and revision of some of its doctrines regarding priests and their authority, there’s really no way they can make this right.

This has kind of been my question on this. What exactly CAN be done? A lot of the perps are dead, fortunately.

I'm not sure, but one thing that has to stop are these stupid simple apologies. The victims in Ireland aren't getting squat out of the Pope's apology for what happened there. More action needs to be taken, not just from the church but from law enforcement. I mean, you can have statute of limitations, but if you can show that there was a conspiracy by the church to intimidate victims to stay silent for some time, shouldn't that have to be considered in the SoL?

How can they make it right? How about actual punishment for the people who were involved? Perpetrators and enablers alike. Let them face trial. If you know a person is a child molestor and instead of turning them in or getting them to stop, you move them to a place where they can find a new batch of victims, you have to bear some responsibility. Facing the consequences of those actions would be a good start toward making things right.

[ponderingturtle]

...until you remember that they don't preach forgiveness for minor offenses such as having children outside of marriage, being homosexual, or using contraception. According to Penn and Teller's ******** show (not the most objective source, I know), rape victims in the Catholic Church must sign an oath to remain completely silent about the offense until well into adulthood -- on the penalty of excommunication.

If you're caught abusing children, you're given counselling and transferred to another church. When victims try to press charges against them, they are excommunicated.

Beautiful.
Lets not forget excommunicating doctors who perform an abortion on a 9 year old girl. Better she die I guess as extra punishment for seducing her step father who of course was not excommunicated. See raping kids is not a big deal at all.

[AvalonXQ]

Did Jesus not say to his apostles, "If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them"?

Given that the church considers priests to be along the line of apostolic succession, then this directive would apply to them, too.

I'm not saying it's not a debatable argument, but that you are absolutely wrong to say that the bible "doesn't allow for" it.

I understand and accept your point.

[pgwenthold]

I understand and accept your point.

8 years of catholic school, 5 of them as an altar boy (non-molested), taught me a few things. I know a lot about catholic theology. I don't agree with much of any of it, but I know it.

[RobRoy]

This has kind of been my question on this. What exactly CAN be done? A lot of the perps are dead, fortunately.

I'm not sure, but one thing that has to stop are these stupid simple apologies. The victims in Ireland aren't getting squat out of the Pope's apology for what happened there.

Or the lack of apologies, which is the real kick in the nuts to my mind. “Yeah, sure, we abused you as children, took advantage of your naiveté and that of your parents, scarred you for life, but we’re THE CHURCH so we don’t apologize for nothin’. Now bend over and say hello to my little friend!”

Some of the victims only wanted an admission of wrong-doing, an apology, and a meeting with the Pope. DENIED! Yeah, that’s cool man. Very smooth. A race issue between law enforcement and an esteemed Black History professor goes down and President Obama invites them both to a sit down and a beer. But decades of rape and sexual abuse get a slammed door? Is it any wonder people are fleeing the RCC in droves?

More action needs to be taken, not just from the church but from law enforcement. I mean, you can have statute of limitations, but if you can show that there was a conspiracy by the church to intimidate victims to stay silent for some time, shouldn't that have to be considered in the SoL?

Recent law cases have bankrupted dioceses in the US. Perhaps the victims could take their case to the international courts of The Hague for prosecution of the RCC and its current head of state?

How can they make it right? How about actual punishment for the people who were involved? Perpetrators and enablers alike. Let them face trial. If you know a person is a child molestor and instead of turning them in or getting them to stop, you move them to a place where they can find a new batch of victims, you have to bear some responsibility. Facing the consequences of those actions would be a good start toward making things right.

I agree completely. Any priest found out to have abused their position of power in such an extreme case should be turned over to local law enforcement and with the RCCs aid, investigated fully. If the charges are found to have merit, they should then be prosecuted to the fullest just like any other individual. Membership in a religion’s hierarchy shouldn’t make you immune to prosecution.

In addition, because he was complicit in the cover-ups and failed to take decisive action, Benedict should resign his position (which won’t happen), and the RCC should institute a new hierarchy to include laity as part of their governance (which won’t happen). I also think they should revamp the concept of female priests and priests being able to marry (which also won’t happen). It wouldn’t render the RCC perfect by any means, but when your primary mission is supposed to be succoring and saving souls, then you should be the first to step up and take action when any crimes take place, especially those that are in direct conflict with your own stated morality.

[pgwenthold]

Recent law cases have bankrupted dioceses in the US.

But that is because the victims have had to utilize the civil courts, where the punishment is financial.

If the bastards were just put up to criminal trial, those that lose would be subject to criminal punishment, not civil penalties.

It is the church's own fault that they are losing civil cases, because they kept trying to protect their members from facing criminal trial. Hence, the diocese compounds its conspiracy problem, and you darn right juries are going to hold them responsible.

Instead of protecting the accused, it would be a lot cheaper for the church to turn them over to proper authorities and let the law deal with them.

[RobRoy]

But that is because the victims have had to utilize the civil courts, where the punishment is financial.

If the bastards were just put up to criminal trial, those that lose would be subject to criminal punishment, not civil penalties.

It is the church's own fault that they are losing civil cases, because they kept trying to protect their members from facing criminal trial. Hence, the diocese compounds its conspiracy problem, and you darn right juries are going to hold them responsible.

Instead of protecting the accused, it would be a lot cheaper for the church to turn them over to proper authorities and let the law deal with them.

I wasn't suggesting that the criminals shouldn't be held liable. Just stating that more can be done, as proved by certain recent cases. I'm all for criminal trials being held.

[ponderingturtle]

Recent law cases have bankrupted dioceses in the US. Perhaps the victims could take their case to the international courts of The Hague for prosecution of the RCC and its current head of state?

Which have been bankrupted? I thought they got bailed out so that they wouldn't have to show their books in court.

[hgc]

When it's a pedophile in a black frock, however, they defend him! Defend him! DEFEND HIM!


If only that were the worst of it. It's the moving them into fresh hunting grounds that boils my blood.

Think of Bernard "Facilitator of Child Rape" Law hiding out in Rome, having fled in the face of an impending grand jury subpoena.

[Safe-Keeper]

You know... often in the news we hear about police being frustrated with immigrants from Islamic nations who refuse to cooperate with the secular police forces of their new nations, and demand their own Sharia courts to deal with criminals. Usually when we hear this, we think of it as a failure of integration, and discuss openly if Islam may not be in need of reform. I'm not even getting into our outrage when rape victims are punished in countries such as Saudi-Arabia.

Yet when the Roman Catholic Church, a European institution, and its churches all over Europe, does the very same thing, suddenly they're to be above criticism, because now it's 'our' people caught with their pants down? Why is it that when Dawkins slams the Catholic church for allowing the sexual abuse of children to go unpunished within their ranks, people turn it into an "anti-religion" statement?

[likelystory]

Carl Ratzinger and the others who knew about the sex crimes should be brought before the Worldy Courts and punished for their worldly sinnful evil wickedness.

The Vatican should be disovled,because it was and still is the head quaters that allowed sex crimes to happen in every following generation of priests.

The Catholic Church is a FRONT for rapists and pedophiles. Notice how the Priests target the Male Gender.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Oh no, they molest plenty of girls, too:

http://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/female_victims_index.htm

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:6fKNBgNAl5AJ:www.slate.com/id/2205444/+dear+prudence+priest+sister&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (2nd item)

[BobHaulk]

i thought child abuse was the reason for the catholic church, that and money.

[AvalonXQ]

Why is it that when Dawkins slams the Catholic church for allowing the sexual abuse of children to go unpunished within their ranks, people turn it into an "anti-religion" statement?

Because it is an anti-religion statement. Dawkins is anti-religion, and his purpose in making a statement is related to his desire to attack religion.
He doesn't make public statement condemning rape or coverup by other groups; he brings it up this time because it's the RCC.

[RobRoy]

Which have been bankrupted? I thought they got bailed out so that they wouldn't have to show their books in court.

While I’m not aware of that tactic, I wouldn’t discount it from the church. In addition, I lack omnilegal presence, so I can’t name all the cases that are out there. Still, will a few recent ones do:

Wilmington (http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100327/NEWS01/3270344)
Spokane (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/sections/diocese/)
San Diego (http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070301-9999-1n1diocese.html)

[ddt]

Because it is an anti-religion statement. Dawkins is anti-religion, and his purpose in making a statement is related to his desire to attack religion.
He doesn't make public statement condemning rape or coverup by other groups; he brings it up this time because it's the RCC.

Can you name then other groups that cover up rape and other crimes committed by their members? Apart from obviously criminal groups like the Mafia, that is.

[RobRoy]

Can you name then other groups that cover up rape and other crimes committed by their members? Apart from obviously criminal groups like the Mafia, that is.

The US Military?

[AvalonXQ]

Can you name then other groups that cover up rape and other crimes committed by their members? Apart from obviously criminal groups like the Mafia, that is.
No. Can you point out a group other than religion that Dawkins calls out in this way?
Look, if a liberal group does something bad, people should call them out. But when Limbaugh is one of those people, nobody claims that his words aren't motivated by political views.
And when Dawkins calls out the RCC, religion is in his motives.

[Christian Klippel]

No. Can you point out a group other than religion that Dawkins calls out in this way?

It's hardly Dawkins fault that the religious zealots spout the largest amount of stupid. What do you expect from a scientist to say about groups that want to eliminate sound science and replace it with superstition? Add to that the secrecy and coverup's they like so much.

Yes, the RCC is a prime example. But i seriously doubt that others are much better. Get real, we are in the 21st century now. It's time to let go of this futile nonsense called "religion".

Greetings,

Chris

[Chris Hegarty]

Has anyone else noticed the similarity in appearance between Pope Benedict XVI and Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars?
:eye-poppi

[ddt]

No. Can you point out a group other than religion that Dawkins calls out in this way?
Look, if a liberal group does something bad, people should call them out. But when Limbaugh is one of those people, nobody claims that his words aren't motivated by political views.
And when Dawkins calls out the RCC, religion is in his motives.

Oh sure, Dawkins is interested in anything to do with religion. Maybe it is in his motives. That's hardly reason to dismiss it. Your tactic to dismiss it because of Dawkins' anti-religious views reminds of the hardline Zionist tactic of saying: "look what happens in Darfur, or in Burma, or some-other-place". It's no excuse similar bad things happen elsewhere; each case should be judged on its own merits. It's even more ludicrous as you state it as you admit you can't even point to another group that does similar vile things.

It's obvious from the various cases - from ten or so years ago in the US, and now recently in Europe - that vast tracts of the RCC hierarchy knew of these abuses; and kept silent and tried to hush it up. Moreover, it's now clear that Ratzinger himself knew of such cases, both from his time as archbishop of Munich and as Grand Inquisitor. Or do you deny that?

[Sledge]

Has anyone else noticed the similarity in appearance between Pope Benedict XVI and Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars?
:eye-poppi

Don't know what you mean.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y65/1TrueSledge/poperor.gif

[Chris Hegarty]

Don't know what you mean.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y65/1TrueSledge/poperor.gif

I'm happy that someone else obviously already saw it, but sad that I wasn't the first.

[Mongrel]

And apparently the press 'hounding' the RCC is just like "anti-Semitism"
Summary (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8601084.stm)

Bleh

[Sledge]

Well, that's one of the most offensive things I've seen in a while. It's simply staggering how the RCC can't grasp that the only way to come out of this with any credibility is to turn the whole thing over to the proper secular authorities and stop trying to cover it up.

On the other hand, as an atheist I can't help but wonder if this isn't a good thing in that it might make more people think about what religions actually stand for a bit more. Not a consolation to however many people it is whose lives were systematically ruined by these bastards, but the whole thing is so *********** reprehensible that I'll take any ray of sunshine I can find that stops me wanting to commit acts of violence.

[hgc]

Because it is an anti-religion statement. Dawkins is anti-religion, and his purpose in making a statement is related to his desire to attack religion.
He doesn't make public statement condemning rape or coverup by other groups; he brings it up this time because it's the RCC.


What rape and coverup by other groups? While you're at it, how about child-rape, coverup and facilitation of more of the same by other groups?

Dawkins is anti-religion for multiple reasons, and he's made a public name for himself speaking out loud about it. One of those reasons is that religoius organizations profess special access to moral certainty. When on the unfortunate occasions that they behave like regular humans with moral failings, they have special access to moral high ground in order to a) justify to themselves not taking responsibility and b) tell the rest of the world to screw themselves, since they are the deity's special representatives on Earth. (a) happened for many decades and centuries, right up to recently (at best), and (b) is continuing to happen now, such as the church hierarchy's continued insistance that they are victims of Catholic-haters and vindictive media. They, who knowingly sent child-rapists to fresh hunting grounds, claim to be the victims!

And here we go again. Dawkins is to be disregarded on the topic because he doesn't like religion. What a crock.

[hgc]

How does this church hierarchy demonstrate their contempt for their countless victims? Let me count the ways...

Here's another good one, from today -- This is the pope's personal confessor, speaking on Good Friday in St. Peter's in the presense of the goulish demi-god himself:


"This makes us make a thought to our Jewish brothers."

"They know from experience what it means to be victims of the collective violence, and because of this, they are able to recognize the reoccurring symptoms."

He then quoted what he said was a letter from a Jewish friend. "I am following with disgust the violent and concentric attack against the church, the pope and all the faithful from the whole world," the letter said.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/02/vatican.antisemitism/index.html

First, I don't think this lying sack of **** received any such letter. But even if he did, what to say? Being called out for your long-standing institutional policy of facilitating child-rape is just like oppression and murder of Jews. The funniest (in a sick way) thing of all is that, up until recent centuries, the Catholic church was the leading Jew-killing organization on Earth.

[MattusMaximus]

And apparently the press 'hounding' the RCC is just like "anti-Semitism"
Summary (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8601084.stm)

Bleh

Pope's preacher: Accusations akin to anti-Semitism (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_re_eu/eu_church_abuse)

At a solemn Good Friday service, Pope Benedict XVI's personal preacher likened the tide of allegations that the pontiff has covered up sex abuse cases to the "more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism." But within hours, facing a storm of criticism at the comparison, the Vatican felt it necessary to distance the pope from the preacher's remarks.

Both Jewish and victims' groups responded that it was inappropriate to compare the discomfort being experienced by the church leadership in the sex abuse scandal to the violence that culminated in the Holocaust. The Vatican has been on the defensive in recent days, saying the church has been singled out and collectively stereotyped for the problem of pedophilia, which it says is a society-wide issue.

Invoking any comparison with anti-Semitism was particularly sensitive on Good Friday, itself a delicate day in a decades-long effort by Jews and Catholics to overcome a legacy of mistrust. There was a long-held Catholic belief that Jews were collectively responsible for executing Christ, and a landmark achievement of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s was a declaration stating the Jews should not be blamed for the crucifixion. ...

Wow, the level of cognitive dissonance on display here by the Vatican is absolutely staggering. I'm glad to see that this has backfired on them quite badly.

Talk about just not getting it :boggled:

[Sun Countess]

The Vatican has been on the defensive in recent days, saying the church has been singled out and collectively stereotyped for the problem of pedophilia, which it says is a society-wide issue.
They just don't seem to get that it's not just the pedophilia (which is a HUGE problem), but the systematic cover-up of the abuse, and the in-house counselling and transfer of pedophiles to new parishes with no restrictions on their access to other children.

The problem may be society-wide, but their solution most certainly is not. We don't have secular justice system paying off victims for their silence, refusing to prosecute the accused, and instead transferring them to new playgrounds and schools in some sort of perverse perpetrator-protection-program.

p.s. Sledge, your pontiff/Palpatine gif is fabulous.

[Safe-Keeper]

They just don't seem to get that it's not just the pedophilia (which is a HUGE problem), but the systematic cover-up of the abuse, and the in-house counselling and transfer of pedophiles to new parishes with no restrictions on their access to other children.Oh, they get it. They just couldn't care less.

Because it is an anti-religion statement. Dawkins is anti-religion, and his purpose in making a statement is related to his desire to attack religion.
He doesn't make public statement condemning rape or coverup by other groups; he brings it up this time because it's the RCC. You're right in that reactions to Richard Dawkins are probably stronger than they would've been if he wasn't, well, Dawkins. But really, does it matter? A statement is a statement, it doesn't get any less true or valid just because it's from someone with an alleged vested interest. If the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science was accused of doing what the Catholic Church was and is doing, you and your fellow Christians would have every right to complain without getting shot down for being "anti-atheism".

[Brainache]

I can only hope that this scandal becomes a millstone around the neck of Catholicism that drags it to the bottom of the sea.

[Aepervius]

I can only hope that this scandal becomes a millstone around the neck of Catholicism that drags it to the bottom of the sea.

Don't count on it. If my family and my neighbour's is any example of what's going on out there in other Cathos family then they are all out there rationalising it away !!!!! (eleventy "!"). "it was pedo which infiltered priest rank" (heck i think I read that one here too) , "what could they have done otherwise, they have to forgive" etc...etc... Yesterday I have left the table pretending to be sick, I could not hear more of that ****.

(anecdotal evidence yada yada).

[likelystory]

If catholic priests want to be celibate and not rapists,then physically make them into eunuchs. Starting with Carl Ratzinger first.

[Safe-Keeper]

"what could they have done otherwise, they have to forgive"Ask them if it'd be okay to them if other parties started acting the same way. Let's say their church was broken into or one of its members beaten up or threatened by immigrants living in a Middle Eastern neighbourhood. Let's say that when questioned by police, the residents refused to cooperate on the grounds that they only recognized Shariah police forces as legitimate, and preferred to "solve such matters internally", even if it meant repeat crimes against the church and its members.

I know it's hyperbole to say this, but society would break down if everyone acted this way. You can't just slap a label on to yourself like "non-secular" and declare yourself to be above the law.

[Sledge]

p.s. Sledge, your pontiff/Palpatine gif is fabulous.
Wish I could claim I made it, but sadly not. Pretty damn appropriate though. Although I'm not sure even Palapatine oversaw the raping of children.

I really don't understand Avalon's... point seems wrong. "Rambling," I guess. Anyhoo, I don't understand what he was saying about Dawkins. Attack the argument, not the arguer, dude.

I also don't follow the "people wouldn't do this if other organisations did the same thing" argument. Firstly, I'm having trouble thinking of another organisation that is comparable to the RCC. Secondly, we SHOULD be reacting more to this than if, say, the Coca-Cola corporation had the same problem.

See, if it turns out that many Coca-Cola employees had used their position to abuse children and that the company had covered this up, that would be bad. The laws of many nations would be set loose on this company. Their sales would probably hit rock bottom overnight. With the RCC, we need to make a bigger fuss. People are still supporting these insane old bastards, defending the decisions made that allowed (hell, encouraged) paedophiles to cover up their past activities and do it again.

Not only that, but the RCC is supposed to be better. Take the example again of Coca-Cola. That company makes soft drinks. They make no claim to be morally superior to anyone else, only that they make the best soft drinks. It is their opinion that people should drink those beverages. If we don't... well, there's not much they can do about it. The RCC in comparison states that it is the only source of true morality in the world. What it says is right and true. If you don't obey what it says then you will burn in hell for all eternity. So when the RCC is found to be a corrupt, immoral organistation, that's a bigger deal than when we find a company behaving the same way.

In conclusion: anyone trying to defend the RCC is stupid.

[Darat]

How does this church hierarchy demonstrate their contempt for their countless victims? Let me count the ways...

...snip...

The clearest example of this was the Vatican refusing to even respond to inquiries from the recent official Irish report into child abuse by the Roman Catholic Church: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504

[hgc]

The clearest example of this was the Vatican refusing to even respond to inquiries from the recent official Irish report into child abuse by the Roman Catholic Church: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504


Yeah. Here's the response -- Ratzinger's pastoral letter to the Catholics of Ireland --
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html

Here are some choice bits...

For my part, considering the gravity of these offences, and the often inadequate response to them on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities in your country, I have decided to write this Pastoral Letter to express my closeness to you and to propose a path of healing, renewal and reparation.


Translation -- Nothing to do with me, nothing to do with Woytola.

It is true, as many in your country have pointed out, that the problem of child abuse is peculiar neither to Ireland nor to the Church. Nevertheless, ...


Translation -- You already admitted that this isn't about the church, so don't blame us.


In recent decades, however, the Church in your country has had to confront new and serious challenges to the faith arising from the rapid transformation and secularization of Irish society. Fast-paced social change has occurred, often adversely affecting people’s traditional adherence to Catholic teaching and values.


Translation -- It's all the fault of modernity.

I have met with victims of sexual abuse, as indeed I am ready to do in the future. I have sat with them, I have listened to their stories, I have acknowledged their suffering, and I have prayed with them and for them.


Translation -- I have not admitted responsibility on behalf of the church, myself.

I asked the bishops of Ireland, “to establish the truth of what happened in the past, to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from occurring again


Translation -- The facilitators and perpetrators of child rape and all manner of systemic child abuse practices (think Magdalene laundries) will do their own investigating, thank you very much.

And on and on it goes...

For a more straightforward assessment of what happened in Ireland, I recommend Sinead O'Conner's recent assessment in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502363.html

Irish Catholics are in a dysfunctional relationship with an abusive organization. The pope must take responsibility for the actions of his subordinates. If Catholic priests are abusing children, it is Rome, not Dublin, that must answer for it with a full confession and in a criminal investigation.


I recommend the entire column. It's a good, short summary of what happened in Ireland and what's wrong with Ratzinger's response.

[Aepervius]

"Ask them if it'd be okay to them if (snip)"

It is my family. I have stopped trying rational debate a long time ago. it make up for tension and really they never change theirn opinion. I jsut leave the table when it is too much to handle.

[MattusMaximus]

For a more straightforward assessment of what happened in Ireland, I recommend Sinead O'Conner's recent assessment in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502363.html

I recommend the entire column. It's a good, short summary of what happened in Ireland and what's wrong with Ratzinger's response.

I bet she could get away with tearing up a photo of the Pope on live TV now, couldn't she? :)

[Aitch]

I bet she could get away with tearing up a photo of the Pope on live TV now, couldn't she? :)

Only if Kris Kristopherson was there to give support. ;)

Anyway, on a lighter note:

Leering old villains in frocks
wear nothing beneath them but socks.
The reason, I guess,
for this oddness of dress
is <removed on grounds of taste>. :)

[chillzero]

Because it is an anti-religion statement. Dawkins is anti-religion, and his purpose in making a statement is related to his desire to attack religion.
He doesn't make public statement condemning rape or coverup by other groups; he brings it up this time because it's the RCC.
So what?
Look, Dawkins may be anti-religion, but the statement of fact that the RCC has done so much wrong is not invalidated by his stance. Are you suggesting that Dawkins supports paedophilia in circles other than the RCC? I certainly expect not. Do you think he should keep quiet and not opine on what is a clear dual standard as nicely put in the post you responded to? Should organised religion get some kind of differential treatment when it comes to such crimes?

I hope this is not godwinning the thread, but decades ago people stood and spoke against the nazis for years ... did it make later declarations of outrage against the gassing of Jews any less valid? No. Did it make what the nazis did any more understandable/defensible? No.

What exactly was your point here?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

So what?
Look, Dawkins may be anti-religion, but the statement of fact that the RCC has done so much wrong is not invalidated by his stance. Are you suggesting that Dawkins supports paedophilia in circles other than the RCC? I certainly expect not. Do you think he should keep quiet and not opine on what is a clear dual standard as nicely put in the post you responded to? Should organised religion get some kind of differential treatment when it comes to such crimes?

I hope this is not godwinning the thread, but decades ago people stood and spoke against the nazis for years ... did it make later declarations of outrage against the gassing of Jews any less valid? No. Did it make what the nazis did any more understandable/defensible? No.

What exactly was your point here?


i am a former Catholic, and i have to say comments like those issued by avalon 9and many many bishops and cardinals to boot) on this matter just disgust me. Saying that people only care about this issue because it is the Catholic Church is basically saying that you don't think this is a big deal. Oh, they ONLY raped and tortured thousands of kids and this was only covered up by people now in positions of power at the highest level, why would anyone care about a little thing like that except for the fact that it's the Catholic Church.

THIS is why, avalon:

cardinal brady is the head of the Catholic Church in ireland. He ADMITS to the fact that he forced children who had been raped to sign a vow of silence promising to never tell anyone. He admits that not only did he not turn a pedophile priest over to authorities and force his victims to remain silent, but he allowed that man to continue to work with children. He admits that as a result of his actions, dozens of more children were abused.

This man is an accessory to rape. he not only neglected to turn in a rapist, he allowed the rapist to continue to operate in an environment which facilitated these rapes. he knowingly provided him with fresh victims and then threatened those victims, children, with excommunication should they ever tell their story.

He should be in jail. if he was the head of a school or a day care center and had done the exact same thing, he would be in jail. Instead, he is the head of the Irish Catholic Church.

Do you really not understand the outrage here? What kind of person are you where you think the only reason Dawkins or anyone else would care that the heads of a religion are accessories to child rape is because they're Catholic? The POINT is that they are only allowed to escape prosecution because they are Catholic.

There is now very strong evidence that the pope personally intervened to prevent taking action against a man who admitted to molesting over 200 deaf boys. again, in any other circumstance, he would be villified by society and jailed. if he or cardinal Brady were anyone other than religious leaders, had they been school admnistrators, there would not be a single voice supporting them. Just look at the bullying case in South Ashby, Ma, that's all over the news. The school administrators had been told that Phoebe prince was being viciously bullied before she committed suicide, and they did nothing. as i live near where this happens, i have seen immense news coverage and spoken with many people about this. there is not one single voice out there defending the school administrators (except the school workers themselves). Parents and news outlets and community leaders are uniformly outraged that the school knew about it and did nothng. I haven't heard a single interviewed parent express anything but outrage at the school and demand that guilty parties be fired.


Yet what Catholic Church leaders did was this exact thing on a much more massive and heinous scale. And yet there are media outlets and members of their faith who actually DEFEND their actions. THAT is what angers people like Dawkins and myself. It is one of the things that pushed me out of the church. Not just the cover up, but that so many people around me in my Catholic community brushed it off as no big deal and were not in favor of holding these men accountable. That is what really woke me up to the evils of religion. That it can make people accept atrocities. Now granted, many other Catholics have left with me. But the BBC states the pews of Cardinal Brady's church remain full. People continue to put money in the collection plates of his parish. They continue to support a man who ADMITS to being accessory to the rape of dozens of children and who admits to threatening the abused children.

Tell me in what other circumstance except a religious one in which such a man like that would be able to keep his position and the support of most of his community?


yes, you're right, Dawkins does bring it up because it's the Catholic Church. Because there ARE no secular examples of this sort of thing happening for him to complain about. If this kind of thing were happening in other institutions, I have no doubt he would publically condemn them too. But please list for me a single SECULAR case in which a community leader ADMITS to being accessory to the rapes of dozens of children and continues to receive the support of most of his community and does not face criminal charges and does not have to resign, as is the case with Cardinal Brady?

[Brainache]

i am a former Catholic, and i have to say comments like those issued by avalon 9and many many bishops and cardinals to boot) on this matter just disgust me. Saying that people only care about this issue because it is the Catholic Church is basically saying that you don't think this is a big deal. Oh, they ONLY raped and tortured thousands of kids and this was only covered up by people now in positions of power at the highest level, why would anyone care about a little thing like that except for the fact that it's the Catholic Church.

THIS is why, avalon:

cardinal brady is the head of the Catholic Church in ireland. He ADMITS to the fact that he forced children who had been raped to sign a vow of silence promising to never tell anyone. He admits that not only did he not turn a pedophile priest over to authorities and force his victims to remain silent, but he allowed that man to continue to work with children. He admits that as a result of his actions, dozens of more children were abused.

This man is an accessory to rape. he not only neglected to turn in a rapist, he allowed the rapist to continue to operate in an environment which facilitated these rapes. he knowingly provided him with fresh victims and then threatened those victims, children, with excommunication should they ever tell their story.

He should be in jail. if he was the head of a school or a day care center and had done the exact same thing, he would be in jail. Instead, he is the head of the Irish Catholic Church.

Do you really not understand the outrage here? What kind of person are you where you think the only reason Dawkins or anyone else would care that the heads of a religion are accessories to child rape is because they're Catholic? The POINT is that they are only allowed to escape prosecution because they are Catholic.

There is now very strong evidence that the pope personally intervened to prevent taking action against a man who admitted to molesting over 200 deaf boys. again, in any other circumstance, he would be villified by society and jailed. if he or cardinal Brady were anyone other than religious leaders, had they been school admnistrators, there would not be a single voice supporting them. Just look at the bullying case in South Ashby, Ma, that's all over the news. The school administrators had been told that Phoebe prince was being viciously bullied before she committed suicide, and they did nothing. as i live near where this happens, i have seen immense news coverage and spoken with many people about this. there is not one single voice out there defending the school administrators (except the school workers themselves). Parents and news outlets and community leaders are uniformly outraged that the school knew about it. I haven't heard a single interviewed parent express anything but outrage at the school and demand that guilty parties be fired.


Yet what Catholic Church leaders did was this exact thing on a much more massive and heinous scale. And yet there are media outlets and members of their faith who actually DEFEND their actions. THAT is what angers people like Dawkins and myself. It is one of the things that pushed me out of the church. Not just the cover up, but that so many people around me in my Catholic community brushed it off as no big deal and were not in favor of holding these men accountable. That is what really woke me up to the evils of religion. That it can make people accept atrocities. Now granted, many other Catholics have left with me. But the ones I know who have stayed...so many of them just don't seem to care. And it makes me ashamed that this was a group i was ever part of, that protecting their agenda and ideology is far more important to them than the violation of innocents.


I just simply do not understand so many of my former fellow Catholics simply think this is no big deal and think that people only care because they are anti catholic. But then, oh, homosexuality is just the worst most unforgivable sin in the world.

Is there some rule in Ireland preventing the Police from just arresting these bastards? Or am I just naive to think that there might be some cops willing to do such a thing.

[chillzero]

cardinal brady is the head of the Catholic Church in ireland. He ADMITS to the fact that he forced children who had been raped to sign a vow of silence promising to never tell anyone. He admits that not only did he not turn a pedophile priest over to authorities and force his victims to remain silent, but he allowed that man to continue to work with children. He admits that as a result of his actions, dozens of more children were abused.

This man is an accessory to rape. he not only neglected to turn in a rapist, he allowed the rapist to continue to operate in an environment which facilitated these rapes. he knowingly provided him with fresh victims and then threatened those victims, children, with excommunication should they ever tell their story.

He should be in jail. if he was the head of a school or a day care center and had done the exact same thing, he would be in jail. Instead, he is the head of the Irish Catholic Church.

I know someone who was abused by a catholic priest teaching at a catholic school back in Northern Ireland. When I tried to encourage him to seek justice, he refused, and tried hard to explain to me (from a protestant background) why it would do no good to do so. He tried to make me understand the insular closed-ranks of the church. When I turned to some mutual friends for help with this, they (as pupils at the same school) saw it from his viewpoint, and at least one more of them had encountered similar abuse. It disgusts me as much today as it did 15 years ago.

[chillzero]

Is there some rule in Ireland preventing the Police from just arresting these bastards? Or am I just naive to think that there might be some cops willing to do such a thing.

Well, in the Republic of Ireland the church and state have a rather mafiosa relationship. It is hard to be a lone voice (police officer/victim) against a huge entity (RCC), that has people in the right political places to influence matters. Hopefully that is changing as time progresses and the world moves on and this may be the beginning of a process that would see the appropriate actions being the norm instead of being covered up and the witnesses intimidated (maybe not physically, but these people turn to the church for their everyday guidance and in the longer term their final absolution).

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Well, in the Republic of Ireland the church and state have a rather mafiosa relationship. It is hard to be a lone voice (police officer/victim) against a huge entity (RCC), that has people in the right political places to influence matters. Hopefully that is changing as time progresses and the world moves on and this may be the beginning of a process that would see the appropriate actions being the norm instead of being covered up and the witnesses intimidated (maybe not physically, but these people turn to the church for their everyday guidance and in the longer term their final absolution).

it's also a matter of public support.

here in Boston, Cardinal Law admitted to doing this....allowing pedophiles to continue to work with children, not turning them in, making victims remain silent, and he was not prosecuted. i think this is largely because Boston is mostly Catholic and the DA just didn't want to go up against the court of public opinion.

Again, a big reason i left the Church. Knowing that people were so blinded by religion that they felt the only crime was the priests who actually molested kids. They honestly didn't see the big deal in people who allowed this to happen and who allowed these pedophiles to work in field in which they had an endless supply of victims and who threatened these victims.

in what other context except religion would there be legitimate concern that the public would largely be AGAINST the prosecution of an accessory to child rape?

[blobru]

How does this church hierarchy demonstrate their contempt for their countless victims? Let me count the ways...

Here's another good one, from today -- This is the pope's personal confessor, speaking on Good Friday in St. Peter's in the presense of the goulish demi-god himself:


"This makes us make a thought to our Jewish brothers."

"They know from experience what it means to be victims of the collective violence, and because of this, they are able to recognize the reoccurring symptoms."

He then quoted what he said was a letter from a Jewish friend. "I am following with disgust the violent and concentric attack against the church, the pope and all the faithful from the whole world," the letter said.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/02/vatican.antisemitism/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/02/vatican.antisemitism/index.html)

First, I don't think this lying sack of **** received any such letter. But even if he did, what to say? Being called out for your long-standing institutional policy of facilitating child-rape is just like oppression and murder of Jews. The funniest (in a sick way) thing of all is that, up until recent centuries, the Catholic church was the leading Jew-killing organization on Earth.


A priest with an imaginary friend? Say it ain't so, Po.

For the RCC to claim that or any sort of victim status after generations of institutionalized child abuse is... is... well, it almost beggars comparison. It's as if polio were criticizing the salk vaccine for its overly harsh and unfair treatment. Incredible.*

I didn't think this Church could sink any lower in my estimation. Grazie a Fr. Cantalamessa, this fine Easter weekend, for demonstrating once again how much I still have to learn about the depths of Catholic hypocrisy.

*(I would as soon have believed that a man could rise from the dead. And I won't be surprised when some idiot Catholic apologist jumps on this for his latest argumentum ad ignorantiam: "If we can abuse children and claim to be victims, hey, anything's possible; therefore, jc is lord, benedict holy father, help yourself to the booze and bread crumbs, etc...")

[MattusMaximus]

Well, at least now the Anglican Church and RCC are duking it out again.

Ah, reminds me of the old days - isn't it wonderful how Christians love each other? :)

[Safe-Keeper]

in what other context except religion would there be legitimate concern that the public would largely be AGAINST the prosecution of an accessory to child rape? Have Jack Bauer torture children to gain information about some bomb and I'm sure certain right-wing fanatics would all of a sudden support that, too. Worked with torture.

[chillzero]

Have Jack Bauer torture children to gain information about some bomb and I'm sure certain right-wing fanatics would all of a sudden support that, too. Worked with torture.
You do know there's a very important difference between the pope and Jack Bauer, don't you?

[Madouc]

Jack Bauer affected at least a modicum of moral confliction?

[Safe-Keeper]

Research by Human Rights Watch, not to mention all the people who keep bringing up 24 scenarios in debates about torture, suggest to me that he has swayed the opinions of a significant number of people.

[chillzero]

Jack Bauer affected at least a modicum of moral confliction?
lol. OK - 2 important differences. ;)

Research by Human Rights Watch, not to mention all the people who keep bringing up 24 scenarios in debates about torture, suggest to me that he has swayed the opinions of a significant number of people.
Really.
You believe a fictional character has actively swayed opinions ... over the possibility that people who may never have given the concept much thought before had one aspect of it graphically put in front of them by the writers of a fictional show and (lazily) formed an opinion from there?

It may be semantics to a degree, but I do find it important to recognise that the pope and his many minions are real people, doing real and active damage to the lives of many many people. To form an opinion based on real life facts is a world away from opining on fictional possibilities. Besides - your fictional scenario does not even compare to the one you quoted ... what kind of fictional scene would Jack Bauer need to have written for him in order for people to support child rape? I can't think of one.

[Cainkane1]

I'm just waiting for Chris Hansen to catch a Cardinal.
They haven't caught a Priest yet but they have caught several Ministers and one Rabbi. Here where I live a youth pastor was caught trying to set up a date with what he thought was a 14 year old girl. He was married with two teenaged daughters of his own. He went to the house and he was arrested.

[ddt]

MSNBC has a clip (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36124879#36124879) about German catholics renouncing their faith in droves. At about 40 seconds into the clip, you see people in the Munich town hall asking to be delisted as catholic. The German RCC depends financially for 70% from the Church tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax) that is collected by the state from your gross income, if you have declared to the state that you belong to a church. This amounts to some 5 billion Euro per year. This is going to hurt them (deservedly).

[Chris Hegarty]

It annoys me that so many countries still tithe to any church. I know that Spain and Germany do it; it just bothers me.

I really think the Pope should resign (http://hegartyblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/pope-on-a-rope-everyones-tired-of-this-guy/); that's (http://hegartyblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/holy-crap-its-the-pope/)been (http://hegartyblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/the-catholic-church-is-a-wonderful-loving-caring-institution/) one (http://hegartyblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/stupid-is-universal/) of my general (http://hegartyblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/more-catholic-sex-abuse-surprise/) points (http://hegartyblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/the-vatican-is-a-bunch-of-closeted-gays/) on my blag.

Many people, I find, are still afraid to call out the Vatican (and the Pope specifically) for being a bunch of villains. No other world leader could get away with even a tithe of his baloney. Gah.

[Christian Klippel]

Many people, I find, are still afraid to call out the Vatican (and the Pope specifically) for being a bunch of villains. No other world leader could get away with even a tithe of his baloney. Gah.

True. But then one has to keep in mind the methods with which the churches react to such criticism. One very popular way is the "hurt feelings" card. "Oh, this is about religion, how can hurt the feelings of so many people" blahblah. The next is the "That is antisemitic" card.

The first one is so deeply enshrined in the culture, it will take some while to get rid of that stupidity. I mean, frankly, no one say that if you criticize politicians, restaurant chiefs, football teams, etc. So why make an exception for religion?

The second one is really sick. Not only is it totally unfair to make that comparison, towards the victims of the 3rd Reich and other jewish-people-huntings. It also bears the risk of becoming a blunt argument even if used in valid comparisons. If that card is played too often and too fast, people will start to think "So what, i hear that very often, couldn't be that bad after all".

But then, it's quite a task to get rid of the collective memories of the churches past behaviors. They have successfully planted the seed of fear into the majority of people throughout the past centuries. Either by their "Follow god or you end up in hell after death" or by their direct actions against people. Think inquisition for a big example. Or witch burnings, etc.

Greetings,

Chris

[CORed]

If only that were the worst of it. It's the moving them into fresh hunting grounds that boils my blood.

Think of Bernard "Facilitator of Child Rape" Law hiding out in Rome, having fled in the face of an impending grand jury subpoena.

Yes. I would have some sympathy for the church's efforts to protect priests from prosecution if any effort had been made to protect children from further abuse. It wouldn't be right, but it would be understandable. Yet in most cases, the church's response when complaints of abuse surfaced was simply to move the priest to another parish. They didn't force them to retire, or move them to a position where they had no contact with children; they just sent them to another parish to do it all over again, in come cases repeatedly. For that, all of them, the priests and the bishops or whoever that enabled them, deserve to be locked up, and the key thrown away.

[ddt]

Yes. I would have some sympathy for the church's efforts to protect priests from prosecution if any effort had been made to protect children from further abuse. It wouldn't be right, but it would be understandable. Yet in most cases, the church's response when complaints of abuse surfaced was simply to move the priest to another parish. They didn't force them to retire, or move them to a position where they had no contact with children; they just sent them to another parish to do it all over again, in come cases repeatedly. For that, all of them, the priests and the bishops or whoever that enabled them, deserve to be locked up, and the key thrown away.

In particular, Ratzinger behaved in that way. From a NYT article:
The German archdiocese led by the future Pope Benedict XVI ignored repeated warnings in the early 1980s by a psychiatrist treating a priest accused of sexually abusing boys that he should not be allowed to work with children, the psychiatrist said Thursday.
[...]
Dr. Huth said he was concerned enough that he set three conditions for treating the priest, the Rev. Peter Hullermann: that he stay away from young people and alcohol and be supervised by another priest at all times.

Dr. Huth said he issued the explicit warnings — both written and oral — before the future pope, then Joseph Ratzinger, archbishop of Munich and Freising, left Germany for a position in the Vatican in 1982.

Needless to say, the psychiatrist's advice was not followed. And the priest in question was subsequently moved from parish to parish.

[Chris Hegarty]

True. But then one has to keep in mind the methods with which the churches react to such criticism. One very popular way is the "hurt feelings" card. "Oh, this is about religion, how can hurt the feelings of so many people" blahblah. The next is the "That is antisemitic" card.

I think it's implicit in the way the church has dealt with this that they are still clinging to their self-declared "Godly immunity" from absolutely everything unpleasant. In reality, very few Catholics even realistically think that the Pope stepping down would have any adverse effect on the church as a whole, but from the Vatican's perspective, it would be a huge blow to the whole "The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and God's representative on Earth" shebang.

[Safe-Keeper]

MSNBC has a clip (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36124879#36124879) about German catholics renouncing their faith in droves. At about 40 seconds into the clip, you see people in the Munich town hall asking to be delisted as catholic. The German RCC depends financially for 70% from the Church tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax) that is collected by the state from your gross income, if you have declared to the state that you belong to a church. This amounts to some 5 billion Euro per year. This is going to hurt them (deservedly).If the Norwegian state church was Catholic, I'd revoke my membership in a heartbeat. I honestly don't mind the RCC itself, it's a source of fellowship and happiness like any religious institution -- but as long as it continues to do harm, it should suffer for it.


You believe a fictional character has actively swayed opinions ... over the possibility that people who may never have given the concept much thought before had one aspect of it graphically put in front of them by the writers of a fictional show and (lazily) formed an opinion from there?Sorry for being misleading -- I meant the show 24, not Bauer himself.

[hgc]

I think it's implicit in the way the church has dealt with this that they are still clinging to their self-declared "Godly immunity" from absolutely everything unpleasant. In reality, very few Catholics even realistically think that the Pope stepping down would have any adverse effect on the church as a whole, but from the Vatican's perspective, it would be a huge blow to the whole "The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and God's representative on Earth" shebang.


Any sentient being who doesn't know that the pope, any pope, is a highly effective political operator who has risen to the pinnacle of his profession by the usual ladder climbing strategies, and not placed in his position by otherworldly forces, is ... well, OK -- It's religion.

But in any case, the pope's most proximate constituency - the cardinals - might already be measuring for the less painful of two very unpleasant options: wait out the (soon to be) 83 year-old Ratzinger's naturally limited tenure or force him into retirement. The problem with these cardinals is that they're all placed in their position by Wojtyla and Ratzinger, so they're the most reactionary and dim-witted possible collection of upper management the church could have.

[Piscivore]

Any sentient being who doesn't know that the pope, any pope, is a highly effective political operator who has risen to the pinnacle of his profession by the usual ladder climbing strategies, and not placed in his position by otherworldly forces, is ... well, OK -- It's religion.

Oi, I'll have you know I'm a pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism#Popes) and I resent being accused of being "highly effective" or at "the pinnacle of" anything.

[George152]

The only reason they wear dresses is to hide their state of undress.
As for the funny hats.......
and
The rat knew what was going on and condoned it.
What's that "suffer little children to come ...." ???/

[Darth Rotor]

MSNBC has a clip (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36124879#36124879) about German catholics renouncing their faith in droves. At about 40 seconds into the clip, you see people in the Munich town hall asking to be delisted as catholic. The German RCC depends financially for 70% from the Church tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax) that is collected by the state from your gross income, if you have declared to the state that you belong to a church. This amounts to some 5 billion Euro per year. This is going to hurt them (deservedly).

Reason enough to look at how separating church and state is a good idea ...

As to the Pope (current and any former) knowing it was going on, and not holding his officers (the clergy) accountable ... that's a profound failure as leader of the Church, which has about 1.2 billion adherents.

Further comments I have previously made, and also made in the Current Events thread on this topic.

A crime gets no better by being covered up. What the Irish Bishop has attested to is a profound betrayal of the laity of Ireland. Given that the RCC frequently appeals to social justice, and justice in general, I think this institutional failure requires concrete action from Rome.

They really suck at long term thinking, in terms of the health of the Church, writ large. There is a movement here in Texas that we see quite a bit, Catholics come home.com, or some such, which appeals to Catholics who have left the church to return to the fold.

As my friend Larry says, not *****' likely. He points explicitly to the cover up of the child abuse (which was a huge stink in the US in late 90's, early 2000s as the court cases came up over and over) as reason enough not to come back.

I got in more than one argument with my wife over the years over the letters I sent each year when the Bishop's Annual appeal came to our house. Each year, a short note: dear sir, you will not get some special tithe from my home until you, the Church, address and resolve the continued failure in leadership that leads to child abuse. The letters would come to her, registered Catholic and all that, but I was adamant about the reply. Give to the local parish? Yes. Beyond that? No.

It still causes us some friction, but not as much as previously. She puts up with my stand on that, and I do not interfere with her prayer vigils against abortion.

Peace in the home is a worthy goal. ;)

DR

[Mr.D]

They honestly didn't see the big deal in people who allowed this to happen and who allowed these pedophiles to work in field in which they had an endless supply of victims and who threatened these victims.

in what other context except religion would there be legitimate concern that the public would largely be AGAINST the prosecution of an accessory to child rape?

Indeed.

I wonder what the public reaction would be if some politician announced that they had been addressing the problem of too few teachers by recruiting off the local sex offenders registry.

Put an odd hat on the same guy and ...

[Eskarina]

MSNBC has a clip (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36124879#36124879) about German catholics renouncing their faith in droves. At about 40 seconds into the clip, you see people in the Munich town hall asking to be delisted as catholic. The German RCC depends financially for 70% from the Church tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax) that is collected by the state from your gross income, if you have declared to the state that you belong to a church. This amounts to some 5 billion Euro per year. This is going to hurt them (deservedly).

A lot of people are reluctant to leave the churches (RCC or Protestant) because they believe their tithe contributes to charity, when it is only about 10% of it that goes to hospitals, kindergartens or senior citizen homes. The rest is used for priests' salaries etc.

But the real bummer is the little known fact, that bishops' and cardinals' salaries and all their entourage are paid with "genuine" tax-Euros, that is, everyone in Germany, who pays taxes, paid and pays for the likes of Ratzinger, Mixa, Lehmann and so on ad nauseam. Literally! :hb:

[ddt]

A lot of people are reluctant to leave the churches (RCC or Protestant) because they believe their tithe contributes to charity, when it is only about 10% of it that goes to hospitals, kindergartens or senior citizen homes. The rest is used for priests' salaries etc.
Of course, they could also give directly to charities; and that's just as much a tax deduction.


But the real bummer is the little known fact, that bishops' and cardinals' salaries and all their entourage are paid with "genuine" tax-Euros, that is, everyone in Germany, who pays taxes, paid and pays for the likes of Ratzinger, Mixa, Lehmann and so on ad nauseam. Literally! :hb:
Ouch :eek:. I feel dirty having contributed to that.

For who reads German: here's a nice website (http://www.stop-kirchensubventionen.de/) about that.

[Brainache]

Something that I only learned recently was that my mother was raised a Catholic up until the age of 13 or 14. Apparently the local Priest tried to grope her one day (put his hand on her bicycle seat as she was getting on to ride home from the Sunday School where she was teaching). My Grandad found out about it, got his brother and they beat the crap out of that Priest. The family never went back to Catholicism after that.
I'm not sure if the above is 100% accurate, but it is the story as told to me by members of my family.

Sometimes I think a direct approach like that is a good thing, other times not. As this is my mother I'm talking about, I think it's a good thing. If some Priest tried anything like that with my daughter I think I might react similarly.

[MattusMaximus]

MSNBC has a clip (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36124879#36124879) about German catholics renouncing their faith in droves. At about 40 seconds into the clip, you see people in the Munich town hall asking to be delisted as catholic. The German RCC depends financially for 70% from the Church tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax) that is collected by the state from your gross income, if you have declared to the state that you belong to a church. This amounts to some 5 billion Euro per year. This is going to hurt them (deservedly).

Good. Hit the Vatican where it will hurt them the most... in their wallet. It's the least the dirty bastards deserve.

[David Henson]

Not sure if this has been posted yet -

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341



As always, Mr. Dawkins hits the nail on the head.

Oh, please. Mr. Dawkins is an idiot and any idiot could have told us any of that 700 years ago about any Pope.

[Simon39759]

Oh, please. Mr. Dawkins is an idiot and any idiot could have told us any of that 700 years ago about any Pope.

Well, we sure are glad about your enlightened opinion about Dr. Dawkins.
After all; the man only made two major contributions to the advancement of evolutionary sciences...

[David Henson]

Well, we sure are glad about your enlightened opinion about Dr. Dawkins.
After all; the man only made two major contributions to the advancement of evolutionary sciences...

I see Dawkins as a typical television evangilist for Atheism on the talk show circuit selling books. An almost, almost I say, perfect match for Bill O'Riely or whatever.

[Simon39759]

Except that, while his opinion on Religion might be what put him on the news, his intellectual contributions to science can not be overstated.


I also disagree with the comparison. He is, actually, quite calm and posed in his attacks and thrive to always make very rational argument on religion. This is a far cry from O'Reilly furious ramblings and authoritative pronouncements. As others have pointed out before; the fact that Dawkins' speech shock so many has more to do with the usual care and undeserved respect religion is treated in the common arena rather than anything Dawkins actually says.
Case in point, here we have him saying that a person that hides and, at least to an extent, help in the raping of children is not a good person. That an organization that does that on a large level over decades is, probably, not worth saving.
Is it that shocking? Because, people, apparently, consider Dawkins is going to far... Would they react the same way with any other organization?

[ponderingturtle]

I see Dawkins as a typical television evangilist for Atheism on the talk show circuit selling books. An almost, almost I say, perfect match for Bill O'Riely or whatever.

Really? I have seen Dawkins admit that he might be wrong and his whole position might need to be rethought at a public lecture. Has O'Riely ever admitted he might be wrong about anything?

[David Henson]

Really? I have seen Dawkins admit that he might be wrong and his whole position might need to be rethought at a public lecture. Has O'Riely ever admitted he might be wrong about anything?

Well, I'm not a regular viewer, but yes, I've seen him do that.

[David Henson]

Except that, while his opinion on Religion might be what put him on the news, his intellectual contributions to science can not be overstated.


I also disagree with the comparison. He is, actually, quite calm and posed in his attacks and thrive to always make very rational argument on religion. This is a far cry from O'Reilly furious ramblings and authoritative pronouncements. As others have pointed out before; the fact that Dawkins' speech shock so many has more to do with the usual care and undeserved respect religion is treated in the common arena rather than anything Dawkins actually says.
Case in point, here we have him saying that a person that hides and, at least to an extent, help in the raping of children is not a good person. That an organization that does that on a large level over decades is, probably, not worth saving.
Is it that shocking? Because, people, apparently, consider Dawkins is going to far... Would they react the same way with any other organization?

I don't believe he has gone too far, in fact I don't think Sinead O'Conner (Spelling?) went too far. I think that all religion should and will be destroyed by Jehovah God Himself, and I would like to think that the Catholic church is the first in line for all of their crimes against humanity. Only because they have been around longer than most and had, at one time, more power than most.

[Simon39759]

Sinnead O'Connor, that's by far, the most common spelling of that name.

[RobRoy]

I don't believe he has gone too far, in fact I don't think Sinead O'Conner (Spelling?) went too far. I think that all religion should and will be destroyed by Jehovah God Himself, and I would like to think that the Catholic church is the first in line for all of their crimes against humanity. Only because they have been around longer than most and had, at one time, more power than most.

Good luck with that thinking. While the removal of all organized religion might be a great boon to humanity, this will never occur. The RCC has suffered much larger blows than a mere fifty-to-sixty year sex scandal cover up. Remember a little thing called the Reformation? The RCC fought that tooth and nail, lost, and has somehow still retained its title of largest Christian religion.

As long as there are people in the world, there will be religion.

[Morrigan]

In yesterday's newspaper I read about Ratzinger doing some speech which carefully avoided bringing up the recent scandals, and the article mentioned followers and supporters. There was a quote from a German supporter who really got my blood boiling. He was quoted as saying that "The media is blowing this thing out of proportion" and basically asserting that the Church was being unfairly demonized in the media. I wanted to scream at him, "go tell that to the raped children, you ****-tard". :( :mad:

[dio]

I think that all religion should and will be destroyed by Jehovah God Himself[...]

This.
And it doesn't even have to be violent, although it seems to have a penchant for that.
It should just reveal itself already, and I do mean itself, and not some petty hippie replica.

But again, it seems to enjoy the mindgames too much.
Like an adult pulling tricks on some mentally retarded kids. Very funny and rewarding. Fully worthy of worship. :rolleyes:

[aggle-rithm]

I haven't read the entire thread, so I apologize if this has been brought up already. I see the word "rape" thrown around a lot...is it really appropriate to classify all the abuse by church officials as "rape"? The most notorious cases in the US, as far as I've seen, involved fondling and inappropriate touching. The language used to describe it often seems to imply that it was much worse.

I am certainly not trying to defend anyone or to minimize the trauma these kids must have suffered. I just think injecting hyperbole into the discussion doesn't help us understand the problem any better.

[ingoa]

T

I agree with you there, but it's not always the case. Germany, e.g., has a statute of 30 years on murder.


That's wrong. Murder, genocide and crimes against humanity have no statutes of limitations in Germany.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verj%C3%A4hrung

[Eskarina]

Of course, they could also give directly to charities; and that's just as much a tax deduction.

They often believe that their money keeps the local protestant hospital or the local catholic kindergarten up and running. Which is just plain wrong. I've become increasingly fond of disabusing people of that notion and mention that fact at every convenient and not-so-convenient opportunity.

Ouch :eek:. I feel dirty having contributed to that.

For who reads German: here's a nice website (http://www.stop-kirchensubventionen.de/) about that.

I sent an e-mail to my representative stating that I am very unhappy with the way my taxmoney is spent, but so far no reply. I think I'll send that letter to my state representative, too. The election is in early May. :D

[ddt]

That's wrong. Murder, genocide and crimes against humanity have no statutes of limitations in Germany.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verj%C3%A4hrung

I stand corrected. Then let me give the right numbers for the crimes in case. All links in German too.

Sexual abuse of children (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexueller_Missbrauch_von_Kindern_%28Deutschland%29 ) has a maximum penalty of 10 years prison. That means a statute of limitation (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfolgungsverj%C3%A4hrung) of 10 years.
In serious cases (e.g. intercourse) the maximum penalty is 15 years, giving a statute of limitation of 20 years.
If the sexual abuse leads to the death of the child, the maximum sentence is life, giving a statute of limitation of 30 years.

ETA: so some of the crimes uncovered in Germany might still be prosecutable, if they fall into the "serious cases".

ETA 2: clicking through from your link - thrilling reading on the Bundestag debates on the extension of the statute of limitations...

[David Henson]

This.
And it doesn't even have to be violent, although it seems to have a penchant for that.
It should just reveal itself already, and I do mean itself, and not some petty hippie replica.

But again, it seems to enjoy the mindgames too much.
Like an adult pulling tricks on some mentally retarded kids. Very funny and rewarding. Fully worthy of worship. :rolleyes:

This.

I don't understand what that applies to, what does it mean? None of "this" makes sense to me or seems connected to the quote you gave from me.

[dio]

This.

I don't understand what that applies to, what does it mean? None of "this" makes sense to me or seems connected to the quote you gave from me.


Oh, sorry, I just noticed your god is a male. Here, I'll rephrase for you:

This.
And he doesn't even have to be violent, although he seems to have a penchant for that.
He should just reveal himself already, and I do mean himself, and not some petty hippie replica.

But again, he seems to enjoy the mindgames too much.
Like an adult pulling tricks on some mentally retarded kids. Very funny and rewarding. Fully worthy of worship. :rolleyes:

[Aitch]

When does the limitation period start? I vaguely remember reading (years ago, not been able to Google anything on it) that the perion only starts when the crime comes to light. Which would mean in cases where the victim is forced to keep quiet about it, it would presumably start when they stop being quiet.

However, IANAL and things may have changed, or be different in different countries.

[ddt]

When does the limitation period start? I vaguely remember reading (years ago, not been able to Google anything on it) that the perion only starts when the crime comes to light. Which would mean in cases where the victim is forced to keep quiet about it, it would presumably start when they stop being quiet.

However, IANAL and things may have changed, or be different in different countries.

Smart point. IANAL, and I'm not German either, but when I read par. 78b (http://bundesrecht.juris.de/stgb/__78b.html) of the German Penal Code, it says the limitation period only starts:
(1) when the victim becomes 18 (sexual abuse is defined in par. 176, 176a and 176b);
(2) as long as no-one has complained.
I'm not sure if I read the latter correctly though.

[pgwenthold]

I contend that if (as was the case in Ireland) the victims are required to agree to a "vow of silence" so to speak, then the clock shouldn't start until that time has elapsed. IOW, if the church tells victims they can't say anything for X years, then the statute of limitations time doesn't START until after X years.

[Brainache]

In Australia (NSW at least) as far as I know, there is no such thing as a statute of limitations. I don't understand why there would be one in Ireland either. IANAL so take this with a grain of cliche, but in cases of child abuse a SOL just gives the criminals a free ride. I still don't understand why there isn't at least one public prosecutor (or whatever they call it there) willing to prosecute these people.

[Olowkow]

I see Dawkins as a typical television evangilist for Atheism on the talk show circuit selling books. An almost, almost I say, perfect match for Bill O'Riely or whatever.

him funny...:D You mean O'Really?