A Dumb Idea, via Hitchens and Dawkins: Arresting the Pope
In recent years there have been numerous attempts to greatly expand the concept of judicial jurisdiction, under the rubric of “universal jurisdiction.” The latest threat, by atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to sue the pope in Great Britain for claimed failures in halting priestly abuse of minors, seems doomed — as were a number of other such adventures in creative law by NGOs and overreaching, grandiloquent jurists.
And that is a good thing.
Jurisdiction of Courts
In Western jurisprudence, a court must have “jurisdiction” to hear a matter. The concept is broad but utterly rational: the court must have personal jurisdiction over the parties to the matter.
The parties must have some ties to the judicial forum, for example an office within the jurisdiction from which they do business, a residence, or a contract provision agreeing that disputes will be heard there. This is often a mixed question of law and fact, but essentially requires a party to show sufficient contacts in the forum to warrant the court’s handling of the matter.
For example, without more, it’s hard to imagine how a suit by a resident of Illinois against a resident of Florida for a contract to be performed in California would be heard in Iowa. Iowa simply lacks sufficient nexus — “logical connection” — to the dispute to be a sensible place for the litigation to take place.
The court also must have subject matter jurisdiction.
A traffic court judge cannot take it upon himself to resolve a landlord-tenant dispute or to decide whether ObamaCare should be enjoined. In fact, he lacks the legal authority to do so.
There’s more involved, but the point is simply that courts cannot try anyone at all for anything at all. They are confined to rational and statutory limits on their powers.
Sovereign Immunity
Some people are granted legal immunity from all suits or some suits. Heads of sovereign states are not subject to suit in other sovereign states for violation of their laws. This is called sovereign immunity. (Confusingly, this is a term also used to describe whether the state can be sued by anyone, a doctrine increasingly diminished in this country by statutes waiving it.)
In two respects, the inability of a person to sue another sovereign state or head of state has been eroded in recent years. In one instance, as states took over businesses and ran them, they were by law deprived of immunity for their commercial activities — activities not normally and historically considered state functions:
In 1976 Congress passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1601 et seq.) to provide foreign nations with immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. federal and state courts in certain circumstances. This act, which strives to conform to international law, prohibits sovereign immunity with regard to commercial activities of foreign states or their agencies or with regard to property taken by a foreign sovereign in violation of international law. Customary international law has continued to move toward a restrictive doctrine.
That seems a perfectly logical exception and retains the historical rationale for immunity.
There is also an exception for international tribunals set up by agreement of the member states (which was, inter alia, the justification for the Nuremberg tribunal).
To date, the International Criminal Court (ICC) still holds that state officials have immunity under international law while serving in office, and are immune from arrest abroad while serving in office except when subject to any duly constituted international criminal tribunal which has jurisdiction over such conduct.
Universal Jurisdiction
Less justifiable on traditional grounds is the concept of “universal jurisdiction,” in which the conduct involved is deemed so beyond international norms of conduct that the concept of state sovereignty is inapplicable. In that case any state that obtains physical custody of a head or officer of the offending state, or a person who it is imagined the home state will not prosecute, can prosecute that person for such crimes.
Obsess much?
Apparently the idea was to mount a legal challenge in Britain to the pope being allowed to visit Britain. It is based on the allegations of sexual abuse of children.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415
Sorry, but there’s no overreaching world court conspiracy strawman for you to slay here. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.
Miss the point much?
This is an attempt to set a Kangaroo positive action Court for the sake of atheist glory !
There is one and only one use for Courts : Apply the Law of the Jurisdiction in question not to advance the idealistic views of people or make politic and religious statements.
What Hitchens and Co are doing is to throw out the window of the centre aspect of Judicial procedure in order to vindicate their atheism
There are more bad guys than good guys out there and we can really imagine Chinese arresting an US official for War crime during the Vietnam war or a Venezuelan court condemning Israeli citizens to capital execution under Iranian tips … and we could have a lot more!
This is just a petty attempt to destroy the dogma of Papal Sanctity, which I don’t believe in, but any else can or not at their personal whim
But to expose the humanity to a new wave of nonsensical positivist European Law for your own atheist belief is beyond me … for the love of Pete they have declared Overseas Vacation an HUMAN RIGHT
They could certainly convict every member of the Congress for crime for humanity for not having voted for O-Care … does now sexual abuse is a crime against humanity ? is there a definition or we are like always flying in the realm of fantasy and judicial positivist dreams ?
To arrest the Pope or not arrest the Pope, I cannot speak to the legal arguments for or against. What I have read has led me to believe that he personally had an opportunity to take action against a priest and stop the abuse of children but decided instead to protect the church.
Will their ever be justice for the victims of the priests and will the church be held to account for the cover-up? Does the idea of arresting the Pope get us closer to that day?
Because “what you have read” (originating with the NYT) was distorted to the point of falsity. The cases in question involved priests who were removed from the active priesthood *years* beforehand, and the matters in querstion was whether they would be formally defrocked. In one case (Murphy of Wisconsin) the man died two days after the case reached Rome and then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s jurisdiction. In the other case, the priest in question had already been convicted, incarcerated, and placed under a lifetime child-contact ban.
There has been NO reported case in which Benedict, as bishop, cardinal, or Pope, has “permitted a priest to continue victimizing children.”
Thank you for your post. Dawkins and Hitchens are engaging in a smear. I addressed this less clearly than you when I said the Pope did not commit a crime.
Also the prosecution and incarcerating of criminals is the job of secular authorities. If someone committed a particular crime or hid that criminal , the authorities are responsible for this. The local bishop is responsible, I believe, with whether clergy or lay workers are allowed any actual job within his diocese. The Vatican would be involved with the removal of the priest’s Holy Orders and I imagine there are cases where this has not been done even if a priest served time for some crime.
The fact that many of these incidents (all of the ones I saw recently) happened decades ago and people of good will might have thought a stint in some sort of rehab and an OK from a psychiatrist to return to work was good enough at the time is possible.
I have no interest in letting anyone off the hook but it is essential to actually have a real airing of facts instead of a witch hunt. The Milwaukee case appears to be the latter.
There’s also the little problem that the Pope did not commit a crime. As a Catholic I’m not happy with how the church has dealt with the issue of homosexual pedophilia in the priesthood but the allegations against the Pope do not involve criminal acts.
Since when has Hitchens EVER stopped playing Teenage Rebel eager to find “hypocrisy” in the adult world?
It is definitely overreaching, arresting the Pope, but then again so is the lawfare being conducted by Hamas in Britain and the rest of the EU against Israeli and American politicians and military officers. Britain refuses to change their ridiculous law, so let the chips fall where it may. Oh and BTW it was Mussolini who declared the Vatican a seperate state. It had always been part of the Italian nation since the 1890s when modern Italy was created. There does not need to be dispensation for a religious leader if that person brokered the abuse of children.I would say in fact, someone who purports to have a direct line to God has more of an obligation than mankind as awhole to protect children, which in and of itself is a major responsibility of human civilization.
Oh you English athiests are so full of yourselves, sooo serious and so utterly boring.
Such is the Deist ‘heritage’ after your ancestors destroyed Catholic England aka Mary’s Dowry to replace the Apostles with a mere King.
England is still under a curse and seems to revel in its passive aggressive, polite superficiality whilst it destroys its very basis whilst maintaining the cathedals for tourists and having them as empty museums devoid of worshippers.
“Such is the Deist ‘heritage’ after your ancestors destroyed Catholic England aka Mary’s Dowry to replace the Apostles with a mere King.”
uh…what century are you living in? you are the not-too-uncommon PJM poster who is so far out there one doesn’t even know where to begin…
You were able to figure out what he was talking about?
Surely, Hitchens and Dawkins are having us on.
This is far too silly to contemplate. One thinks they are doing an early and very public audition in applying for a panto part as the “Lord Protector” somewhere. And, indeed, they have all the ill-humoured, arrogant posture of Oliver Cromwell without any of his good Protestant intentions.
Lord, protect us from silliness that is transmogrified into almost criminal PC behaviour.
How about a suit brought against Hitchens and Dawkins for spreading propoganda as if what they think is somekind of universal truth. I have no idea if God exists as depicted by most religions but I do know it is impossible to deny the probobility. The more science learns the more we find that we do not know.
As an example the conditions described before the Big Bang, which is dicy because time does not exist then, are described as a singularity that contains all the stuff of the universe. Such a singularity because of its’ mass would have no reason to change or go bang because time does not exist in such a structue. That means we have a paradox here folks. It also means that some external force or spark must have set the whole thing off. This force or spark would have had to come from outside the universe which is also a meaningless term in those conditions.
It is Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Dawkins who are peddeling absurdity. There is much evidence that points to the existence of an external Intelligent force but they choose to ignore it. By doing so they are morally dishonest and should be called out for it.
Good point Rich. This is why Einstein was a theist. Einstein believed in a steady state universe untill Hubble proved otherwise. What about nonlocality?
Leo
duh…yeah…good point, Rich. we need more thinking folk like you. can someone help me change my Depends diapers now before the tea party rally?
Christopher Hitchens is blinded by his hatred of organized religion. The irony is that he fails to realize the crazy Left that presently wishes to arrest the pope—will almost certainly add him to the list in the near future! They perceive Hitchens as a paid propagandist of the reactionary warmongers.
Nope, these aren’t the droids you’re looking for! You can go about your business. . . move along! (Uh, actually, if I recall that quote correctly, those were the droids they were looking for! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. The Jedi will tell you weak-minded ones what to think.)
As for Hitchens and Dawkins. . . if they really cared about kids, they’d be taking on the UN, and the international sex trafficing trade—not to mention Islamic child marriage, in Britain. But those aren’t the droids they care about. Move along, move along. . .
As for Hitchens and Dawkins. . . if they really cared about kids, they’d be taking on the UN, and the international sex trafficing trade—not to mention Islamic child marriage, in Britain.
It’s obvious they’re not trying to protect children so much as use this as an excuse to embarrass the pope. It’s obvious that they’re opportunists who will use what’s necessary to make their point, and what that point really is other than a dislike of the church seems unclear. (To those of you pointing out the obvious, I thank you, but I imagine we all got it the first time.)
What I’d responded to was that this wasn’t an attempt as per the article’s description of an accusation looking for a court with sufficient authority. Instead, they’re trying to pressure officials where they live to disallow a visit. Public pressure could result in enough backlash that the government decides to disallow the visit. There’s enough people riled up about the sexual abuse.
This is a different thing than ICC.
Liberals consider themselves to be above the law, and everyone else to be beneath it.
This pathetic figure called “Richard Dawkins” has gone ballistic, since his bankrupt theory of the “selfish gene” has been demonstrated to be as much of a fraud as AGW. The atheist moron has now gone wild; what’s next for him? I know, a “Nobel Peace Prize.”
Hitchens can be very insightful on many things, but as soon as the conversation turns to religion or faith, he turns into a mouth foaming, hate filled demagogue. There may be many reasons to be unhappy with this pope or the Catholic Church, but having Hitchens lead the effort makes it less credible.
Hitchens is a bright person, except when the subject of religion vs atheism comes up. Then Hitchens turns as radical as the most rabid jihadi or eremite. He becomes an atheist fanatic as obsessively immune to reason as, well, as G.L. is concerning topics political. IMO though it can’t be proven there is a Creator, it can’t be proven there isn’t one either.
But the whole thing is that an unfalsifiable proposition is worthless. People on here don’t seem to get that. I can make up any number of things that you cannot disprove, but if I demand you respect them because of that, well…shame on me.
Your white crow or yeti argument, Atar, had more cogency before physicists connected a “singularity” to a universe with a beginning. And describing atheism as a kind of skepticism does not account for the religious fervor of a Hitchens or Dawkins.
Anything you don’t believe in, is just made up?
How very tolerant of you.
A person with an open mind would take the position that anything they can’t disprove, just might be true. Looks like we can’t include you in the category of the tolerant.
Since I can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, does this mean I get to accuse you of making it up as well?
One final point. A lot of people feel they can prove that God does exist.
The fact that none of these proofs lives up to your standards doesn’t prove that these others are wrong. It may just prove that the standards you have set are impossibly high.
Is the idea that falsifiability should be the standard of judgment falsifiable? If so, please explain. If not, then it’s a worthless idea, right?
Leave it be. Atheism is just another religion and both of the afforementioned atheists are just looking for attention. These people are so stuck on themselves and their supposed rational thinking. – nothing will come of this.
The Catholic Church has issues, even deep ones, but I admire their steadfastness, especially in trying to protect the unborn. They need to allow priests to get married -most problems will be solved.
Best comment yet.
…
Hitchens should look to his own atheistic house. People like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot committed atrocities to dwarf even the worst days of the Inquisition. These atrocities were committed in the name of communism, but Hitchens stubbornly denies to acknowledge the entanglement of communism and atheism.
There may be reasons to allow priests to get married, but mitigating against abuse is not one of them. The vast majority of child abuse is carried out by non-celibate and non-clerical relatives of the abused children, often their own parents, and a significant remainder is carried out by teachers, or other responsible guardian adults, who have no celibacy requirement; and this abuse is often much more frequently and more successfully concealed.
As it happens, married priests *are* theologically permissible, albeit with special dispensation from the Pope (as in the case of Greek Orthodox priests who convert to Latin rite after ordination). The sacraments of matrimony and holy orders are not spiritually mutually exclusive, only practically.
A priest has to put his flock first, before anyone and everything else; a husband and father will naturally have extreme difficulty doing this. Moreover, new priests are often dispatched to extremely poor parts of the world and may be called upon to relocate at any time; forcing a family to go through this is often unfair to both wife and children. Finally, of course, a priest’s vows of poverty mean he is dependent on the Church and his parish for support; double or triple the living expenses of most of its clergy, and the Church would have extreme difficulty supporting its ministry. (A working wife would mitigate against support cost, but would tie that priest to a specific location more permanently than the Church can often afford.)
The evil committed in the shelter of the Church must be found and punished, but simple-seeming solutions are seldom viable ones.
“Simple – seeming,” maybe, but sometimes simple is best. It seems to me that The Catholic church has more problems of this sort than say Baptists.
I agree. I tried to read “The God Delusion” because overall I cannot buy into any of the man-made tenets and artifacts of organized religion. But I had to put it down after the umpteenth tortured attempt to prove the non-provable. I can reasonably agree to a form of Agnosticism (except that they don’t have enough holidays) but Atheism is, as you say, just another religion.
With respect to the priesthood, I speak as a former Catholic who was thrown into the Seminary at the tender age of 13. I subsequently escaped at 15. My theory is simply that certain professions attract people with certain dispositions. For example people with violent tendencies are more attracted to police work than say in accounting and thus you find a higher percentage of violence among policemen than in the overall population. Likewise the Catholic priesthood is a perfect attractor for men not interested in getting married to a woman and/or very interested in being around a lot of young men. By becoming a priest they don’t have to explain their bachelorhood and there is a steady supply of what they are really interested in. Not to say this applies to every priest or that every one of them so inclined eventually acts on those feelings. But it is no surprise at all that revelations of such abuses are becoming so common and the defense that priest abuses simply reflects the same percentages of such things in overall society is very wrong.
Has any organization formed by willing adult people, the Catholic church have the right set it owns standard, one of which included the priest celibate life.
It is easy to say that just allowing every to get married will solve the problem, but the truth is completely different … and like we don’t have enough pastors promiscuity on hand you want to had the priesthood in the mess ? lol
But it doesn’t change the fact that there will always be maniacs every looking for young children … so the best you can do is to suspicious, even of the priests and be naive … you will also save us from the show of Atheist nonsense kangaroo courts
Dawkins and Hitchens display what I consider a common malady amongst the activists of the atheist and/or humanist crowd.
Mentally imbalanced…
While some apparently claim Richard Dawkins brilliant, I’ve listened to him numerous times in various forums, and it’s been my observation that the man is a first class fraud, and possibly clinically insane. A depraved mind will do that to you.
Dawkins is headed toward an ugly end. Then his real trouble starts…
Hitchens shows his true colors when Israel is mentioned. Then he reveals himself as a coward, and a moral relativist of the first order.
Apparently most people raised in England – include Andrew Sullivan – can only rein in their G-d-hatred for so long. This then mixes with anti-Semitism and Jewish self-hatred, in Hitchen’s case. So he can love America, which was founded on a series of conquests and near-genocides, and hate Jewish Israel.
Who needs him? Dawkins is useless all the way.
As an agnostic, I find the militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to be as boring and offensive as the most militant fundamentalist. Both are trying to force their religious views on others.
It would be amusing if either one of these fools actually tried to get close enough to the Pope to arrest him. Something tells me the Swiss Guard or other security personnel wouldn’t take too kindly to their actions. Excessive use of force is authorized!
I would be incredibly FUN !
I can’t wait and see that self righteous pansy get placated and controlled by the Swiss guard
Hitchens is sometimes actually worth listening to – not sure if that’s when he’s sober or blotto – (my gut suggests he’s at his best when blotto) – but his insane positions against Mother Theresa and the Pope seem to reveal some tremendous taint on the man. One of the most delightful videos I’ve ever seen depicts him being water-boarded. He lasted about one fourth of a second, which also reveals something about his fiber.
Every state in the West turns a blind eye to racist violence against whites, in particular racist rape. It is a taboo subject, forbidden to be spoken of by Political Correctness. For example, rape in prison in the U.S. is largely racial, with white victims and non-white perpetrators (See “No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons” from Human Rights Watch) without any hearing from Congress that explicitly examines the racial nature of these rapes, nor any real interest from the media, either. (I would go as far as to say that the Liberal establishment consciously maintains prison rape as a method of controlling the white population.) Under the ideas being pushed by Hitchens every Leftist politician in the West, including present and past members of the U.S. Congress, should be arrested. Nor should “journalists”, including Hitchens, be excluded. Of course, these sorts of shenanigans pop up only under conditions where those in power know that they are immune from the rules they set for others, Political Correctness couldn’t exist otherwise.
I do not read the NYT…that being said, I appreciate the additional information and correction.
I don’t know any atheist, who isn’t a self described GENIUS.
http://4merly-a-person.livejournal.com/182836.html
Please forgive my posting some scripture here.* I actually corresponded with Christopher Hitchens for a few e-mails, but he blocked me pretty quickly.
And, I’ve yet to find a “Christian,” who doesn’t HATE other sects of Christians or Jews, but are all in favor of FORGIVING MUSLIMS ON JIHAD AND COMMUNISTS, ALL SORTS.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201&version=NASB
26For this reason (AV)God gave them over to(GAVE UP ON) (AW)degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, (AX)men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, (AY)God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are (AZ)gossips,
30slanderers, (BA)haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, (BB)disobedient to parents,
31without understanding, untrustworthy, (BC)unloving, unmerciful;
32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of (BD)death, they not only do the same, but also (BE)give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Gee…why wonder why he blocked you…
And, I’ve yet to find a “Christian,” who doesn’t HATE other sects of Christians or Jews,
You must travel in some really strange circles. I have never met a Christian who meets either of those conditions. I don’t deny that some exist, but to claim that all Christians do, is a pretty extreme claim.
M. Scott Peck wrote, “People Of The Lie.” People with Pathological Narcissism, ARE these people, and they are EVIL.
http://www.narcissisticabuse.com/evil.html
EVIL No one wants to talk about it. But if they do, the talk is of Hitler, torturers, child rapists. (Fundies, CEOS, SMOKERS, DAD, PALINS, BUSHES, MCCARTHYS, LIBBYS, TRANS FAT, AUTOMOBILES, FETUSES BOY SCOUTS, ADULTS IN GENERAL.)
Scott Peck describes for us the characteristics of the personality disorder that encompasses evil:
consistent destructive scapegoating, often subtle
excessive, usually covert intolerance to criticism
pronounced concern with public image, denial of vengeful motives
intellectual deviousness with likelihood of mild schizoid disturbance
Evil leaves its mark at the cellular level. There is a physiology to evil. Cells are imprinted at the moment terror engulfs us. Brain cells are destroyed by stress and facing evil is neverending stress. The body never leaves flight or fight mode. Children silently suffer the slings and arrows of the narcissistic parent who is unable to care. What happens to the child is of no concern to the narcissist, he must prevail no matter the cost. The child as collateral damage is unimportant. Winning is everything.
***********************************************************************
In my experience, which is vast, including 2 siblings, one parent, an ex wife, and virtually everybody I grew up with in the 60s…Every narcissist I’ve ever known was savagely abused in some fashion, when he/she was a child.
Somehow, the Evil jumped over me, but it turned me into a zombie..Narcissists are Body Snatchers and Psychic Vampires..
This so called atheists running around with their fingers in their ears
screaming at God “I cant hear you..I cant hear you.” the louder they scream
the more they prove how very real God is to them..and how threatening.
And why limit universal jurisdiction to just state officials and employees? Should not the fourth estate, ie., Mr. Hitchens, be liable for cheerleading “war crimes” in Iraq? Be careful what you ask for, Hitch, you could find yourself in a Spanish or Sudanese jail, depending on your travel itinerary, being prosecuted for “hate crimes” against humanity.
It is well to note that atheistic systems such as communism, socialism, and progressivism have no provision for the forgiveness of sins. When the State (as these conceive of it) is God, there is only crime, never the will to sin. There is a kind of confessional among these systems, but such confessions lead either to the firing squad or to the reeducation camp. For all its faults, the Catholic Church does provide for forgiveness, and its theologians recognize that we are all in need of it.
How can anybody claim these two goombahs are intelligent? Now there is a claim without evidentiary support.
As for universal jurisdiction itself, I would be in favor of it if there were a federal shark-jumping statute. Hitchens and Dawkins would be specially renditioned, intantaneously found hopelessly guilty, and sentenced to forty days and forty nights of watching The Lifetime Channel at full volume, and for extra punishment, no access to the internets or reporters. Good.
Maybe we could sell the Pope an indulgence.
The real reason these “New Atheists” want to arrest the Pope is because he challenged key positions of the American Bushite corporate war machine on Palestine and Iraq. They want him replaced by a Pope similar to the last one who eagerly licks the anus of capital, and who would never dare challenge the General Dynamics cash flow that is used to supply Texaco with the muscle to control their slaves in the Middle East.
Like Chancellor Palpatine, the corporate power structure controls both the Christian fundamentalists and the new atheists like puppets on a string. Both are useful in scapegoating its third world Muslim slaves and their rash, desperate attempts at resistance for the devastation capital has wrought upon humanity and her Mother Earth.
Whenever you watch a Christian/atheist debate, don’t pay any attention to what is said but rather ask yourself why this debate is happening at all and who benefits from it. Richard Dawkins and John Hagee alike both serve the dark god of KStreet!
Thanks for the funny, Apostle. Yu gud troll.
I reckon this kind of silly publicity stunt deserves a minor comment or two, but I don’t see it as a serious attempt to do anything but get face time for the “crusaders” against the Pope and a chance to say “the sky is falling” for those who make their living from drama…
Yu gud troll.
Funny how liberals actual believe that corporations control everything.
I’m still trying to figure out if it is supposed to be a secret cabal where all corporations get together and decide who’s going to control what?
Or is it one master corporation that controls everything in secret and actually tells its member corporations to pretend to fight with each other to keep the masses from figuring things out?
The “Smart Guys” are usually eager to make comparisons between Christianity and Islam and
and find moral a equivalence of the two religions. Their silence on this comparison is, in this case, deafening.
We have some bad people within the Catholic Church who have acted outside the teachings of the church, (and it is true that the church probably hasn’t done enough to remedy the situation), and the “Smart Guys” call for the arrest of the Pope, but every bad thing they have done and much, much more is condoned by the so-called “religion” of Islam and its leaders. All the horrendous atrocities committed by the followers of Islam, which in fact are part of their “religion”, however, can be excused under the mantra of “freedom of religion”. Something is terribly, terribly wrong.
Funny, Popes in history have done far worse and not been punished. What’s a little “soft-on-pedo” when you’re in the same seat as Rodrigo Borgia?
This is a good point. Absolutely nothing this Pope has done vis-a-vis priestly kiddy diddling was not also done by his predecessor. However, his predecessor was a willing agent of the American corporate plutocracy. He repudiated the compassionate defenders of social justice in his Church in Latin America and he was instrumental in feeding his own country Poland as well as the rest of Eastern Europe into the thralldom of PepsiCo and Texaco. This Pope has called for justice for the Palestinians and challenged the Bush genocide in Iraq.This leads me to believe there are other reasons for this crusade than his alleged cover-ups of sexual misconduct.
The way to deal with these extraterritorialist busybody judges is for a couple of medium to large countries defining international criminal charges to be a violation of human rights, and the crime preferably to be capital.
Then issue dead-or-alive warrants for the judges. See how they like the shoe on the other foot.
May I ask what some of you would suggest?
The Catholic Church and Benedict himself have been directly implicated in the cover-up of these abuses. Sexual predation of children is abhorrent and there is no denying that the Church/Vatican is more concerned with their image than (literally) children of God.
The blathering on this column is ridiculous – easy to blast Hitchens or Dawkins for the vehement anti-theims. That said, this is an institution that has consistently moved around pedophilic priests and given them new victims to abuse, denied reporting such crimes to the authorities and is blaming homosexuals instead of their own institution and crimes. They are calling it a conspiracy against Rome.
Is this, the Vatican and the Catholic Church, truly what you believe God wants from his followers? Are they truly divine in God’s eyes?
What if it was your child? A friend’s child? A relative?
Make fun of Hitch/Dawk all you want, at least they are proposing *something*. Best option? No. But you guys harping on them is pathetic in the face of what was done in a protected culture (Holy Rome) — facilitating the sexual abuse of minors.
Does the Church truly seem repentent to any of you? Has any of their recent rhetoric said anything other than “protect Roma at all costs”? If this institution TRULY was as they present themselves to be, Holy, would they have done this? Would they have sacrificed child after child after child?
Sure, I’ll make fun of Hitch and Dawk any time! As much as I want, whenever I want.
They aren’t the guys to fix the church—or anything else, for that matter.
They’re useless grandstanders. As I said earlier—check back when they start criticizing the UN, and/or the international sex trade.