This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← World, Have Your Say

World, Have Your Say - Comments

Detlef's Avatar Comment 1 by Detlef

FYI mp3 file can be downloaded here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/whys

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:26:00 UTC | #459447

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 2 by Diacanu

Lucas-

Paula Kirby's in it!

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:29:00 UTC | #459449

Pete.K's Avatar Comment 3 by Pete.K

What I've heard so far is quite farcical, the catholic apologists are defending the pope, and the corrupt organisation that props him up, as if it has done no wrong at all.

If the RCC is as innocent as they suggest, why is there not an Interpol task force investigating the who organisation. And to answer Ray Flynn who asked "Why did the police and authorities not take action" and I would suggest that the Irish case where a young lad committed suicide illustrates why!

A young lad, who was believed by his mother, although many abused children were not, took his complaint to the police, and the police handed the matter to the church to deal with. The boy was told by the clergy that he was a liar and not to speak about it again, this resulted in a very upset young lad committing suicide.

There are men who who were abused as boys who are now coming forward, they state that they were similarly treated. Now, as for the pope, he was in office as a cardinal when some of these cases were dealt with, and it has been proven that he was directly involved.

That guy Ray Flynn is a very rude man indeed, he just cannot accept that the pope can do any wrong.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:50:00 UTC | #459465

Thurston's Avatar Comment 5 by Thurston

I found it very hard to listen to Ray Flynn (a Bill Donohue clone, it seems). He claims that Dawkins and Hitchens have an atheistic axe to grind but isn't willing to admit his own (more apparent) pro-Catholic bias. Maybe, just maybe, atheists have a moral committment to this issue that is untrammelled by religious allegiance.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:51:00 UTC | #459467

Quine's Avatar Comment 4 by Quine

Great comment by Paula stating that it has to be the anti-Catholics who bring the charges because the Catholics will not do it themselves.

People need to wake up and recognize that the Vatican is not acting like a conventional nation, but is in reality, a world wide organization operating by its own internal laws, as does the La Cosa Nostra. Whatever good they have done, and whatever bad other organizations have done, it is still the case that they have covered up child rape for centuries as a normal part of their business. This is all coming out, now, and they will have to stand the consequences.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:51:00 UTC | #459466

gruebait's Avatar Comment 6 by gruebait

@ Detlef:
Thank you for the link.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:53:00 UTC | #459468

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 7 by Steve Zara

Paula - you were fantastic. It was awful the way you were so talked over. You managed to bring back the focus to the particular points that were relevant in a VERY skillful way when dealing with people who were trying to muddy the waters.

I think there were interesting questions raised: no-one should be above what law exactly? The problem is that laws are national (and so very variable), and international laws are often the result of some rather dodgy political compromises. There were some very interesting issues about this raised in the West Wing drama series. It's important and fascinating. The point of "crime against humanity" is a very powerful one here, I think, although the definition of the term (as Russell Blackford says) is a problem here.

I think this was a really interesting debate. I think so many are missing a vital point here. An arrest is not about assuming that the Pope is guilty. It is about the Pope being subject to the same standards as anyone else.

There is also a major problem here in that the Vatican and its supporters are resorting to legal arguments against arrest and investigation. The argument that the Vatican has any MORAL defence seems to have been abandoned.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:54:00 UTC | #459470

bethe123's Avatar Comment 8 by bethe123

Ray Flynn was incredibly annoying.

He might have been tolerable had he something intelligent to offer to the debate, but that did not seem to be the case.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:15:00 UTC | #459478

Quine's Avatar Comment 9 by Quine

For those who might be interested, Flynn was mayor of Boston (in charge of the police) when Cardinal Law was Archbishop of Boston (in charge of the church cover-up), a city that has traditionally been under the political control of the Catholics.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Flynn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Francis_Law

Cardinal Law is now living at the Vatican, out of reach of US law.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:19:00 UTC | #459479

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 10 by alaskansee

That was brutal, not because the weight of the law is about to be brought to bear on a throng of frock wearing child rapists but because there is not a scrap of acceptance of responsibility.

It's hard to believe there's much more to be said than - "I can't believe it happened, bring in the prosecutors." Dogma makes you stupid apparently.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:24:00 UTC | #459484

Rikitiki13's Avatar Comment 11 by Rikitiki13

There once was a pontiff named Bennie
Whose priesthood they never got any
Except with the kids
Whom they fiddle-dee-did
If caught, just relocate, Va bene!

(oh, I am soo enjoying the show of the RCC squirming...now if only some actual justice could be done...)

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:30:00 UTC | #459487

JuJu's Avatar Comment 12 by JuJu

It seems that the lawyer for the church, Niel Addison doesn't actually know the time line of events leading up to the American priest being charged by the civil authorities and the letter signed by Ratzinger. I thought that the priest was later charged by the authorities after the letter for reasons possibly outside the church. In which case his argument is from is own personal incredulity. It seems he would be more prepared to answer the questions about this since he's the lawyer. I must admit I don't know the time line either, but then again I'm not the lawyer.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 19:34:00 UTC | #459489

savocado's Avatar Comment 13 by savocado

Could someone please post this as a downloadable mp3 file? Thank you.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:08:00 UTC | #459503

njwong's Avatar Comment 14 by njwong

Savocado, please see post #2 by Detlef.

Detlef, thanks for the MP3 link.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:36:00 UTC | #459519

sarith21's Avatar Comment 15 by sarith21

Damned good moderator, I must say.

The catholic lawyer speaks so frustratingly slowly... I just don't know when he's finished. "If......... the pope........ incited.... incited sexual......abuse..............then..........................the criminal courts.." AAARRRRGGHH! Speed up!

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:09:00 UTC | #459536

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 16 by Diacanu

sarith21-

Douche did it on purpose to eat up the time.
Moderator should have cracked the whip on that more.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:13:00 UTC | #459538

sarith21's Avatar Comment 17 by sarith21

I've just got to the 45 minute mark. I could just kiss Paula... she was fantastic!!

Diacanu, you're right... Love hoe Paula so elegantly cornered him though.

And to be fair on the moderator, he tried. He did have very little to work with though... poor guy.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:17:00 UTC | #459540

keithapm's Avatar Comment 18 by keithapm

Neil Addison does not seem to think that refusing to remove someone from a position of power which they have abused (and had been proven to have abused), facilitating further criminal acts, is a crime. Maybe it's not (I'm no lawyer), but it should be and Ratzy is certainly guilty of this kind of facilitation, with respect to the Berlin case at least.

As far as the Kiesle case is concerned I don't think there is much to go on as there has been no evidence for, or even allegations of, abuse committed by Keisle against children, dating from the two year period of time between when Ratzy wrote the letter and when Kiesle was defrocked. Unless of course leaving a convicted sex offender in a position he could possibly abuse (but didn't at the time), or be tempted to abuse could stand up in court, but I don't know if facilitating a situation that could probably/maybe/potentially lead to a crime, is a crime. Whether it is or not, it's morally repugnant, and leaving Keisle in that position "for the good of the church" for a further two years shows a serious lack of basic common sense.

Ray Flynn seems to not understand (Well anything really but... :-P) that putting Ratzy on trial would give him the ability to prove, in a court of law and once and for all, that these allegations against him are unfounded... if they are unfounded. It's simple, if Ratzy can show that the theory of his guilt (posited to fit the facts) does not fit with the data then the original default theory remains; his innocence.

To say that arresting a person because of allegations made against them violates the idea of innocent till proven guilty, as Flynn did, is absurd. The police/lawyers/prosecutors examine a case, in this case the allegations and the evidence (if any)supporting them. If they feel there are grounds for prosecution they proceed with it. The person in question is then arrested and put on trial where the he/she will be presumed innocent unless the prosecutors can prove the woman/man guilty. If he/she is found guilty, she/he is sentenced. If his/her own lawyers can show that the prosecutors' case is poor, then she/he REMAINS innocent.

A trial would provide Ratzy with (what should be) a fair way to vindicate himself from all of these allegations. At the moment he is undergoing a "Trial by Media." In fact if I was innocent of the allegations and in his position I'd raise my hand and say "Yeah, immunity or not I want you guys to take me to court, I want to show everybody that your allegations are baseless." So, why hasn't Ratzy done this? His scoffing manner certainly seems to show his contempt for secular law. Perhaps he doesn't want the stigma of being the first (is it first?) pope tried in a secular court? But then he shouldn't worry, religious organizations have a way of burying or obscuring damaging facts, ask any Catholic what pope Alexander VI was famous for, about just how the doctrines of Catholicism were decided upon or what the infamous "Donation of Constantine" was... and most won't have a clue.

On a related note: What would Jesus, were he alive today, make of the RCC, it's past and present? What would he think of all that has been done in his name and for the good of his church? But then I guess that depends on which version of Jesus you're talking about and there seems to be as many versions of him as there are people who have heard of him.

EDIT: For clarity. It's Late :-P

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:39:00 UTC | #459545

Philoctetes                                        's Avatar Comment 19 by Philoctetes

The viable accusation is "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice".
Of course JR will not be brought into a court of law. That actually is irrelevant because he would have died of old age long before the lawyers have finished arguing. The way to get at the top man as any student of history will recognise, is to pick off his "evil counsellors". I should add that wise princes sacrifice their aides for the sake of their own survival, but It does not appear that JR is wise, more of a Charles II than a Henry VIII. Catholic priests in England have now attacked Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone over his red herring pin head balancing argument confusing homosexuals and Paedophiles.
The apologists for JR are ever more shrill and their defence daily more indefensible.
This looks like proving to be the biggest challenge to the RCC since the reformation in the 16th Century of the modern era.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:33:00 UTC | #459561

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 20 by mordacious1

I hate the argument, "Other religions/institutions have people who have done the same thing. Why are the atheists/media only going after catholics? Obviously, it's because they're anti-catholic".

This is nonsense. Yes, other religions/institutions have these problems. But please cite one that has been covered up from the top and if you can, show that they have not been prosecuted. If a school superintendent did this, his/her head would be on the block and s/he'd be in front of a judge.

All Richard and Christopher are doing, is asking that the catholic church be treated like anyone else, no more, no less.

Good job Paula, btw.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:29:00 UTC | #459577

jel's Avatar Comment 21 by jel

ray flynn must be one of the rudest people i have ever had the misfortune to hear. well done paula for not allowing him to talk over you and well done for bringing the discussion back on track.

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:33:00 UTC | #459588

Alternative Carpark's Avatar Comment 22 by Alternative Carpark

The talented Ms. Kirby certainly gets around.
Time to make her an honorary horsewoman - in recognition of her sterling work.

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:15:00 UTC | #459599

secularjew's Avatar Comment 23 by secularjew

Forgive my American vernacular, but Paula Kirby kicked ass!

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:33:00 UTC | #459606

Alovrin's Avatar Comment 24 by Alovrin

Boy! That was harrowing. Listening to that arsehole Raymond Flynn trying to play roadside cop. 'Move along folks nothing to see here, just keep moving. Just some atheist causing trouble. Move along Move along.'

Well done Paula. You sounded so level headed.
The other catholic apologist was trying to make some kind of case for the inhouse system, as if it had a role to play.
Funny thing, in the example he cited the officer went to the disciplinary hearing AFTER he was convicted.
NOT the other way round.
Was he saying let the church deal with it? No Way.

And trying to frame an argument in a wider context by inflating the proportions i.e. Why you pointing at us, anyone could have done it.
That's what 5 year olds do.

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 02:28:00 UTC | #459610

Lion IRC's Avatar Comment 25 by Lion IRC

Many countries have mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse and it is an offence not to. Similarly most jurisdictions have provision to charge someone for;

Aiding and abetting
Being an accessory after the fact
Harboring a known felon
Perverting the course of justice.
Destroying evidence.

The clock is ticking. The bible is getting louder. Time to reap what has been sown.

The pope knows exactly what is meant by submission to “governing authorities” (Romans 13.1) and he knows that “rendering unto Caesar” is not JUST about paying taxes.

Nicodemus (a religious leader) secretly came to Jesus under the cover of night. Noting this, Jesus warned him about evil doers who prefer to do things in the darkness. (John 3:19) And the pope knows “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed”

A millstone really would have been better for anyone who contributed to sin involving “these little ones”. The pope knows full well the words of Jesus which say woe to those “through whom” these sinful things come – the facilitators of sin against children who lie to or abuse children or try to teach them that such things are NOT sins. (Luke 17:1)

The people affected by this abuse are not a small proportion. There are perhaps a billion catholic victims of this abuse wondering how any one in charge could have been so stupid and egotistical as to think “the reputation” of the church was worth selling so cheaply. 30 pieces of silver for gullible Judas to betray Jesus£

What possessed any church leader to think that the discovery of a pedophile needed to be covered up for “the greater good”£ What a joke. What lack of faith in God!

Satan must be laughing so hard.

Lion (IRC)

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:05:00 UTC | #459620

Alovrin's Avatar Comment 26 by Alovrin

The clock is ticking. The bible is getting louder. Time to reap what has been sown.


Oooooooo Have you got one of those bibleclocks that ticks loudly and ominously coming up to the hour.

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:34:00 UTC | #459630

yanquetino's Avatar Comment 27 by yanquetino

I don't know how Paula could maintain her patience and composure so admirably with that *&^%$#@! Flynn. He is a perfect example of how in-your-face agressiveness can eclipse common sense and factual evidence. If he epitomizes the type of attitude among Catholic power-brokers... all the more reason to arrest the Pope.

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 04:15:00 UTC | #459637

petermun's Avatar Comment 28 by petermun

What a nasty piece of work the dunderhead Flynn is - he has an anger problem so extreme he should seek help as soon as possible. But then anger is a basic characteristics of Roman Catholics in my experience.

Paula was superb.

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:56:00 UTC | #459645

William T. Dawkins's Avatar Comment 29 by William T. Dawkins

Mr Flynn noted 'a priest has called for the pope's resignation' as a plus for the church. Are they spinning the sincere comments from Rev. Scahill or is this arranged sacrificial PR for the defense? I would not put anything past them here.

Great job by Paula!

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:17:00 UTC | #459648

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 30 by Richard Dawkins

The astonishing thing about Ray Flynn is that he used to be an Ambassador. Ambassadors are supposed to be career diplomats not boorish, loudmouthed, steamrollering bullies, with an allergy to the habit of listening to anybody else. A diplomat so ill qualified would never be found in any real Embassy to any real nation. Oh but of course, he was Ambassador to the Vatican, not a real nation at all, and that is one of the points we are making.

Richard

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:21:00 UTC | #459649