Atheist Campaigner Plans UK Arrest of Pope

[Ed2020]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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

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 Ed2020

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.

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 martyh

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

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

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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

your guess is as good as mine

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 Maggy J

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.

or make himself look a complete fool and get shot at the same time

[Russ]

Remember when Tatchell tried to confront Robert Mugabe? OK I can't see Vatican security laying the smackdown on Dawkins but if they did, talk about a youtube moment

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sirius

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.

Exactly and when they were younger pedophiles seems obvious to me that they'd seek positions where they'd have access to children, the way the Vatican has handled it is wrong obviously and the only way they can start to make amends is to name and shame the guilty.

---------- Post added at 18:23 ---------- Previous post was at 18:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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?

Can we arrest heads of state now, if so there are plenty I'd like to see in the dock before The Pope.

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:23 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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

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'.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Russ

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'.

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 TheDaddy

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.

it's a strong case and difficult to disagree with

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

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

[Russ]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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.

I'll go off-topic to explain my point but otherwise this bears no relation to the thread.

One of the biggest challenges to Jesus' divinity was the suggestion MM was his wife or even played a part in his ministry. Whereas all of the Bible is important to Christianity, the story of the death and resurrection and subsequent ascension to Heaven of Jesus is paramount to the whole thing. So anything perceived to be challenge to that was discredited (note: I have no concrete proof of this but it is widely believed in non-Catholics) and this includes Mary Magdalen - at the time prostitution was seen as possibly the worst job a woman could take.

So the issue of prostitution to many in Christianity is a sore one. Whereas the safety of children is also important, viewed with all this in mind, it is made slightly clearer why priests may want nothing to do with prostitutes.

And for those who like to misquote me, nowhere have I said (or do I believe) that child abuse is less serious than prostitution.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

Posted earlier by downquark1:

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

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