Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34998857)

i think there are a lot more people within the catholic church that should be arrested before the pope

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 34998859)

Agreed, But its not going to happen as they will close ranks and prevent it.

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 34998865)

Actually think the fact that atheists are proposing this is somewhat irrelevant. The Catholic Church needs to be properly held accountable for the damage some have caused to many.

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 34998865)

Actually think the fact that atheists are proposing this is somewhat irrelevant. The Catholic Church needs to be properly held accountable for the damage some have caused to many.

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins

Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horme when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it.

Richard

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 34998936)

Do priests need approval by the CRB before they can spend time with young boys?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 34998937)

... <cynical mode> it just shows they hadn't been caught.

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 34998941)

Does this mean the CRB checks are not as useful as they could be? If so, shouldn't we put our own house in order?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 34998951)

because they haven't been caught or have yet to act on their urges.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 34998951)

No what I mean is all a CRB check proves is a person hasn't been caught yet. Of course there are many many people with CRB checks who are completely honourable and innocent but in fairness all it shows is if the person has any relevant convictions. It's possible that child/sex abusers have cleared such checks because they haven't been caught or have yet to act on their urges.

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34998954)

But this, of course, is equally true in every walk of life/work/action - the same could apply for murderers, rapists, thieves, etc, etc......

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 34998924)

The problem is the Catholic Church will have thousands of men who would be willing to lie in court and cover for him if they felt it was "God's will". Yes the Vatican needs to be held to account but I cannot see it ever happening. Cover-up after cover-up.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 34998951)

.... It's possible that child/sex abusers have cleared such checks because they haven't been caught or have yet to act on their urges.

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 34999058)

I thought I read that some of the priests had abused several boys over a period of years.

Originally Posted by Stuart C (Post 34999062)

I don't doubt that they did. Doesn't mean they were caught, though.

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 34999066)

So, how can the head of a global organisation be held responsible, when the local checks aren't working?

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34998954)

But this, of course, is equally true in every walk of life/work/action - the same could apply for murderers, rapists, thieves, etc, etc......

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 34999066)

So, how can the head of a global organisation be held responsible, when the local checks aren't working?

Originally Posted by Ed2020 (Post 34999101)

He shouldn't be held responsible as the head of the Catholic church. He should be held accountable for the active role he played in covering it up at the time. As far as I'm concerned his current job is neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34999158)

but he wasn't pope at the time of a lot of the offences and what evidence is there that he covered anything up
like i said in an earlier post theres a lot more people to be prosecuted before him

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34999161)

Such as the actual priests accused of these crimes.Why isn't Dawkins out to arrest any of them? :confused:

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34999165)

Well my guess is he wants to sell more books..and arresting the Pope is more likely to net him more publicity.

Ooh did I say that out loud?Does make me sound so cynical.;)

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 34998863)

Personally i don't see this as a religious thing. Its just a bunch of dirty old pedophiles that think they can get away with child abuse.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34998916)

Surely if Pope Palpa - sorry - Benedict had a hand in allowing priests to go unpunished, then he should be tried in a court of law?

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 34999082)

Except that most jobs don't require you to remain celibate, which (imo) is likely to be a contributing factor in these cases of child abuse.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34999201)

Don't buy that at all, if it were anything like that they'd be visiting prostitutes not molesting children.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 34999210)

That might not be the case. In catholic teaching prostitutes are villified (it is believed Mary Magdalen wasn't one but early Catholicism made out she was to discredit her) and although molesting children is considerably worse, in a strange kind of way I could understand (although certainly not agree with) that some priests would avoid 'paying for it'.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34999216)

I couldn't understand it, especially because of the regard Jesus had for children, imo these perverts have no vocation, they just found a way of getting access to children and got lucky with the way the church dealt with it.

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 34999082)

Except that most jobs don't require you to remain celibate, which (imo) is likely to be a contributing factor in these cases of child abuse.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34999219)

It just doesn't follow that being celibate would make one a molester of children.Surely it depends on your natural inclinations to begin with.:confused:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34999216)

I couldn't understand it, especially because of the regard Jesus had for children, imo these perverts have no vocation, they just found a way of getting access to children and got lucky with the way the church dealt with it.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34999161)

Such as the actual priests accused of these crimes.Why isn't Dawkins out to arrest any of them? :confused:

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34999165)

Well my guess is he wants to sell more books..and arresting the Pope is more likely to net him more publicity.

Ooh did I say that out loud?Does make me sound so cynical.;)

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins

Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horme when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it.

Richard

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 34999066)

So, how can the head of a global organisation be held responsible, when the local checks aren't working?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34999225)

quite agree ,using the celibacy argument you would have just as many rapist priests(of woman) or random attacks on young girls not just alter boys

Originally Posted by Stuart C (Post 34999252)

I've never argued that he should.

---------- Post added at 19:00 ---------- Previous post was at 18:59 ----------



Except the desire to rape has nothing to do with Sex. It's more about achieving power over the victim.

Originally Posted by Matt D (Post 34999233)

Posted earlier by downquark1:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleCom...e,page2#478580

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34999158)

but he wasn't pope at the time of a lot of the offences

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34999158)

and what evidence is there that he covered anything up like i said in an earlier post theres a lot more people to be prosecuted before him

Originally Posted by Ed2020 (Post 34999342)

No, he was head of the Vatican office responsible for investigating claims of child abuse. I'm not suggesting he should be prosecuted because he's the pope now; it's what he was (and did or did not do) then that's important.



If it was anyone else then there would be sufficient evidence for the police to initiate an investigation. The letters referred to may well still exist on file somewhere, the archbishop who objected to the "disciplinary hearing" being stopped may be able to provide valuable evidence, the testimonies of the victims may count for something as well.

And I'm certainly not arguing that he should be the only one to be prosecuted. Far from it. But if the claims are correct, and he deliberately covered it up, then he should be answering to the same authorities that you or I would if we had done the same thing.

Originally Posted by Ed2020 (Post 34999342)

And I'm certainly not arguing that he should be the only one to be prosecuted. Far from it. But if the claims are correct, and he deliberately covered it up, then he should be answering to the same authorities that you or I would if we had done the same thing.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34999269)

Matt I'm a born cynic..and I'll take all that with a very large ladle of salt before I'm going to believe him.

Originally Posted by Stuart C (Post 34999344)

I suspect the Catholic Church will do all they can to prevent that. It implies that the pope may not be perfect.

Originally Posted by Ed2020 (Post 34999345)

I consider myself a cynic as well, and as such I have no difficulty in believing a newspaper has misquoted him to make a better headline. Especially a newspaper owned by Murdoch.

---------- Post added at 21:01 ---------- Previous post was at 20:59 ----------



I'd put money on it! :)

Although, does the Catholic church claim that the pope was perfect before he became the pope....? And if so why does it take them so long to choose one? Or are all of those cardinals perfect...? :angel:

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34999269)

Matt I'm a born cynic..and I'll take all that with a very large ladle of salt before I'm going to believe him.

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins

It is now more than five hours since I submitted my Comment to the Sunday Times website, stating that their headline is a damaging lie.

Alas, they seem to be living up to the stereotype of a Murdoch paper. So far, they have not published it. Several colleagues have been trying to post similar comments, pointing out the error. With the same result. As far as I can see, in all of the 623 Comments on the Sunday Times website, not a single one alludes to the fact that the Headline is false, while a huge number are abusive precisely because they do not realise that the headline is false.

Richard

___________________

[UPDATE 4/12]
At long last, and only by dint of phoning Marc Horne, the reporter himself, I finally managed to get the Sunday Times to notice their libellous headline and so something about it. Implying, as it did, that I was personally planning to ambush the Pope with a pair of handcuffs in my pocket, one might have thought it too absurd to be taken seriously. Nevertheless it was taken seriously and spawned a great deal of vitriolic abuse on the Sunday Times website, which would not have been provoked by Marc Horne's article itself. The new headline is at least an improvement.

Richard

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 35000118)

This is like watching 2 christians pick on atheist for fun :)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34999347)

isn't it a sin to claim perfection ,after all only god can be perfect ;)