Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI

...And the church spreads its misinformation about condoms being bad in some of the places that need it most. Certain parts Africa being wonderful examples. Abstinence is a wonderful idea in theory, but we are talking about real human beings here. I wish the Church would open it's eyes to the way the real world works. I also think that's partially the problem with the priest abuses. The Church imposes this ludicrous idea of Celibacy...and well...human beings need sex biologically.The only outlet priests have to sexual pleasure is those that are closest with them, mainly, children, as unfortunate and sick as that is.majoras_wrath

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]...And the church spreads its misinformation about condoms being bad in some of the places that need it most. Certain parts Africa being wonderful examples. Abstinence is a wonderful idea in theory, but we are talking about real human beings here. I wish the Church would open it's eyes to the way the real world works. I also think that's partially the problem with the priest abuses. The Church imposes this ludicrous idea of Celibacy...and well...human beings need sex biologically.The only outlet priests have to sexual pleasure is those that are closest with them, mainly, children, as unfortunate and sick as that is.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]...And the church spreads its misinformation about condoms being bad in some of the places that need it most. Certain parts Africa being wonderful examples. Abstinence is a wonderful idea in theory, but we are talking about real human beings here. I wish the Church would open it's eyes to the way the rheal world works. I also think that's partially the problem with the priest abuses. The Church imposes this ludicrous idea of Celibacy...and well...human beings need sex biologically.The only outlet priests have to sexual pleasure is those that are closest with them, mainly, children, as unfortunate and sick as that is.LJS9502_basic

Good luck Mr. Dawkins. International law is the monopoly money of law. Try passing go, I dare you. Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]...And the church spreads its misinformation about condoms being bad in some of the places that need it most. Certain parts Africa being wonderful examples. Abstinence is a wonderful idea in theory, but we are talking about real human beings here. I wish the Church would open it's eyes to the way the rheal world works. I also think that's partially the problem with the priest abuses. The Church imposes this ludicrous idea of Celibacy...and well...human beings need sex biologically.The only outlet priests have to sexual pleasure is those that are closest with them, mainly, children, as unfortunate and sick as that is.Atheists_Pwn

But then if you don't follow the Church, according to them you are "going to hell". For a believer in Catholicism that is pretty devastating. I'm fairly certain the Church doesn't "make suggestions". The Pope claims to know the word directly from God, and as such, has the authority to condemn his followers to Hell if they don't follow the Church's instructions.majoras_wrath

When I read the topic title, I immediately pictured Richard Dawkins dressed up as Judge Dredd just falcon punching Poop Benedict XVI in the face while shouting "I AM THE LAW!!!"

The story was much less interesting, and kind of dick-ish, honestly.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]...And the church spreads its misinformation about condoms being bad in some of the places that need it most. Certain parts Africa being wonderful examples. Abstinence is a wonderful idea in theory, but we are talking about real human beings here. I wish the Church would open it's eyes to the way the rheal world works. I also think that's partially the problem with the priest abuses. The Church imposes this ludicrous idea of Celibacy...and well...human beings need sex biologically.The only outlet priests have to sexual pleasure is those that are closest with them, mainly, children, as unfortunate and sick as that is.Atheists_Pwn

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The church believes in life. Thus, contraception prevents life. Again.....if the church teaches abstinence and you don't follow that....that is an INDIVIDUAL decision. As is the lack of a condom.

imaps3fanboy

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"][QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] abstinence prevents life too. Its not like sperm cells dont die off inside the human bodyAtheists_Pwn

why arrest the pope ? What did he do? They should arrest the priest , wow Richard Dawkins is really desperate to arrest him .

D-RS

Dawkins said:

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.

Nothing will happen. Unfortunately some people are above the law, and the pope is one of those people.

Nothing will happen. Unfortunately some people are above the law, and the pope is one of those people.

Pixel-Pirate

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The church believes in life. Thus, contraception prevents life. Again.....if the church teaches abstinence and you don't follow that....that is an INDIVIDUAL decision. As is the lack of a condom.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] abstinence prevents life too. Its not like sperm cells dont die off inside the human bodyAtheists_Pwn

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"] Lack of children is needed in a lot of third world countries.imaps3fanboy

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"][QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] i dont know about that, the best chance of survival in many areas of the world requires a lot of children. you figure, when you get older you need people to take care of you, and given the fact that many children die, it makes sense to have many. the first world is where children arent as necessary

Atheists_Pwn

Yea.. economically it works.. sometimes.. but socially it hardly ever works.

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"][QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"] True.. but it isn't helping the problem. Usually the parents die young and it leaves one teenager in charge of multiple children which then leads to starvation a lot of times. imaps3fanboy

Yea.. economically it works.. sometimes.. but socially it hardly ever works.

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] yeah maybe. it depends on the situation. big families offer the best chance for survival in those areas. its unfortunateLJS9502_basic

Yea.. economically it works.. sometimes.. but socially it hardly ever works.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]

Yea.. economically it works.. sometimes.. but socially it hardly ever works.

imaps3fanboy

lol thats exactly what Id expect from a catholic priest, haharhianna89

Haha, yeah pretty much. Would be sweet if this guys plan actually worked. Take that, dirty old men!

This will not end well......

[QUOTE="rhianna89"]lol thats exactly what Id expect from a catholic priest, hahajer_1

Haha, yeah pretty much. Would be sweet if this guys plan actually worked. Take that, dirty old men!

[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What? :lol: It's a sin to have sex other than in a marriage. Thus, abstinence is required in regard to moral teachings. It is also not a church law that one must have sex even if they marry nor that they MUST have children. Just that they not deliberately prevent that. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Economically though wouldn't less people to feed mean more survive?LJS9502_basic

1: why is the pope the one being charged? from my understanding, he simply chose not to take action against a sex offender on behalf of the church, how is that illegal?

Thats obstruction of justice and conspiracy of a cover up I believe..

it's certainly a matter of questionable judgement, but it doesn't seem like a legal matter at all.

Yes it is.. If you are knowingly covering up a crime or not reporting it, you are a accessory to the crime.

2: are these people also trying to go after the priest, or just the pope?

The Pope calls the shots, if they had the chance they would go after the priests too.. But if it weren't for the high ups including the Pope, this thing would not continue going on because the priests would be judged under a court of law accordingly.

this guy is obviously just using this situation as an excuse to try to destroy catholicism

You can destroy the Catholic church, but not the entire catholicism faith.. If anything the SEX scandal within the clergy has done that.

3: why would the british government get involved?

Because the Catholic church stretches through out the planet, including Britain.

if the british government arrests the pope, the entire catholic population will despise them..

Actually many Catholics are deeply disturbed of this whole scandal, and think that many of them would not care.. Or even support this if it would make the Catholic organization come clean..

riots will ensue, bad stuff will happen

Sword-Demon

If you do a quick google search you will find that many people, new organizations, and others are all calling for the pope to be brought to justice. This isn't just one random athiest trying to sell more books. Even if you think Richard Dawkins is the scum of the earth you have to admit that he has a point. The pope knowkingly moved a guy to the vatican who had molested over 200 deaf children, so that he couldn't be arrested. This guy a few years later ends up working with children again! If he is willing to do it once, who says he hasn't also done it with other offenders, or won't do it again?

The most infuriating thing about the whole issue is the churches response. It wasn't "we didn't do it, but we are terribly sorry it happened under our watch." It has been, "Why are news stations picking up an old story?" and "Why are they trying to make the church look bad over something that happened 15 years ago?"

If he's guilty then lets do this, if not then this will not end well.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Nothing will happen. Unfortunately some people are above the law, and the pope is one of those people.

LJS9502_basic

Law in general. The idea and rule of it, some are exempt.

[QUOTE="Article"] RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain "for crimes against humanity".

Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.

The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed arguing that the "good of the universal church" should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases.

Benedict will be in Britain between September 16 and 19, visiting London, Glasgow and Coventry, where he will beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman, the 19th-century theologian.

Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.

They have commissioned the barrister Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens, a solicitor, to present a justification for legal action.

The lawyers believe they can ask the Crown Prosecution Service to initiate criminal proceedings against the Pope, launch their own civil action against him or refer his case to the International Criminal Court
Daxo90

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

Also you have made some factual errors. In 1985 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith did not have jurisdiction over sex abuse cases, it had jurisdiction over delicta graviora ( "most grave offenses"). Sexual misdeeds involving a cleric and someone under the age of 18 was made a delictum gravius (singular form of delicta graviora) in 2001 with Pope John Paul II's motu proprio (a type of letter) Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela (I'm not sure what Tutela means, Sacramentorum means "of the Sacraments" and Sancitatis means "of holiness"). However some sex abuse cases were handled by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before 2001 because they occured in the Confessional which made it a crime against the Sacrament of Penance (which constitutes a delictum gravius).

Also, His Eminence Joseph Card. Ratzinger did not, in the letter you mention, try to "cover up" for the offender, he asked that the process be handled "thoroughly and carefully" for the "good of the Universal Church", which could be interpreted many ways. My guess is that Ratzinger meant that the trial process had to be done fair and with due process, rather than rushing to the "defrocking" (that is the term the media is using, I think laicisation is more accurate. Laicisation is dismissal from the clerical state, defrocking merely means that the person who is defrocked is not allowed to wear clerical garb but is still a cleric).

This will not end well......

789shadow

No this will end amusingly.

I can see the youtube videos now.

Several atheist charge the Pope being quickly owned by the Swiss guard.

If you do a quick google search you will find that many people, new organizations, and others are all calling for the pope to be brought to justice. This isn't just one random athiest trying to sell more books. Even if you think Richard Dawkins is the scum of the earth you have to admit that he has a point. The pope knowkingly moved a guy to the vatican who had molested over 200 deaf children, so that he couldn't be arrested. This guy a few years later ends up working with children again! If he is willing to do it once, who says he hasn't also done it with other offenders, or won't do it again?

bigdrew172

Also, His Eminence Joseph Card. Ratzinger did not, in the letter you mention, try to "cover up" for the offender, he asked that the process be handled "thoroughly and carefully" for the "good of the Universal Church", which could be interpreted many ways.

whipassmt

It doesn't really matter how you want to interpret it, obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice. By denying the authorities the information immediatly, the law has been broken. You don't get to conduct your own private investigation and decide how best to spin it in your favour. Lying is obstruction of justice. Destroying or failing to indulge physical evidence is obstruction of justice. Even pretending to be sick during proceedings has been ruled to be obstruction of justice.

It's not about handling things well for the "good of the Universal Church". The Church is not above the law, it doesn't get a reprieve. By saying that, the Pope has pretty much acknowledged they were conspiring to protect themselves, rather than the victims or the concept of justice.

[QUOTE="Daxo90"]

[QUOTE="Article"]

Also, His Eminence Joseph Card. Ratzinger did not, in the letter you mention, try to "cover up" for the offender, he asked that the process be handled "thoroughly and carefully" for the "good of the Universal Church", which could be interpreted many ways. My guess is that Ratzinger meant that the trial process had to be done fair and with due process, rather than rushing to the "defrocking" (that is the term the media is using, I think laicisation is more accurate. Laicisation is dismissal from the clerical state, defrocking merely means that the person who is defrocked is not allowed to wear clerical garb but is still a cleric).

whipassmt

I think the reason this issue has gotten so big is that everyone is talking about him being "defrocked", or removed from the clereical state, opposed to sending this guy to jail. Sure it might seem like a big deal to catholics to be removed from a position of power in the church but in the scheme of things after abusing children it really amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist. It is setting a really bad precedent if future cases come out.

Sorry if I feel really strongly about this however, we had a priest in my home town who had been moved there from across the country after being accused of molesting a child. This didn't come out until he was arrested for abusing 2 children in my home town.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

This will not end well......

dercoo

No this will end amusingly.

I can see the youtube videos now.

Several atheist charge the Pope being quickly owned by the Swiss guard.

Richard Dawkins is my hero.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Also, His Eminence Joseph Card. Ratzinger did not, in the letter you mention, try to "cover up" for the offender, he asked that the process be handled "thoroughly and carefully" for the "good of the Universal Church", which could be interpreted many ways.

Danm_999

It doesn't really matter how you want to interpret it, obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice. By denying the authorities the information immediatly, the law has been broken. You don't get to conduct your own private investigation and decide how best to spin it in your favour. Lying is obstruction of justice. Destroying or failing to indulge physical evidence is obstruction of justice. Even pretending to be sick during proceedings has been ruled to be obstruction of justice.

It's not about handling things well for the "good of the Universal Church". The Church is not above the law, it doesn't get a reprieve. By saying that, the Pope has pretty much acknowledged they were conspiring to protect themselves, rather than the victims or the concept of justice.

Richard Dawkins is my hero.

Bluestorm-Kalas

I love those two so much I think im gonna cry. I hope they go through with it. The church must be accountable for the crimes it commits.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

This will not end well......

Danm_999

No this will end amusingly.

I can see the youtube videos now.

Several atheist charge the Pope being quickly owned by the Swiss guard.

I doubt the UK government would risk the political damage with the Catholicnations over something like this.

It would be like voluntarily putting UK in the same situation as the US under Bush.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Also, His Eminence Joseph Card. Ratzinger did not, in the letter you mention, try to "cover up" for the offender, he asked that the process be handled "thoroughly and carefully" for the "good of the Universal Church", which could be interpreted many ways.

Vandalvideo

It doesn't really matter how you want to interpret it, obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice. By denying the authorities the information immediatly, the law has been broken. You don't get to conduct your own private investigation and decide how best to spin it in your favour. Lying is obstruction of justice. Destroying or failing to indulge physical evidence is obstruction of justice. Even pretending to be sick during proceedings has been ruled to be obstruction of justice.

It's not about handling things well for the "good of the Universal Church". The Church is not above the law, it doesn't get a reprieve. By saying that, the Pope has pretty much acknowledged they were conspiring to protect themselves, rather than the victims or the concept of justice.