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

← The mob should lay off. The pope is completely innocent

The mob should lay off. The pope is completely innocent - Comments

Summer Seale's Avatar Comment 1 by Summer Seale

Ja, Ja, Herr Ratzinger vas just followink orders!

... and signing them too! He is innocent, I tell you! Innocent!

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:37:00 UTC | #460129

Roland_F's Avatar Comment 2 by Roland_F

He did this not to "cover up" the crimes – which had been reported to the local police – but to ensure that the priests were more speedily dealt with.

Nice spin Jack Valero : the very few crimes which already ended up at the police could not be covered up any more anyway. The complaint (and guilt of papa Ratzi) is that most cases did never reach the 'local police'.
Some try to make out that Cardinal Ratzinger's 2001 letter orders a cover-up by insisting that parties observe secrecy under pain of excommunication. What it actually says is that confidentiality should be observed during church trials, to allow the victims to give evidence freely and to protect the accused until found guilty. There is nothing in that letter preventing victims reporting the case to the police, and the assumption is that they should.

Nice spin Jack Valero: Maybe you should read the letter again and read all the lines, without skipping the inconvenient ones and read the original full translation of said letter - and not the comments of the vice-inquisitor cardinal Bertone as sole source.
All cases should be dealt with utmost secrecy internally according to church law, at least until the crimes were expired (10years after the victims 18 birthday).
What a disgusting spin doctor and apologist.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:38:00 UTC | #460130

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 3 by scottishgeologist

WTF is the pope doing in that picture?

Like some sort of bizarre magnifying glass. When he looks through it does he see things denied to us non-popes?

Some sort of wormhole into godland?


Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:39:00 UTC | #460131

Duff's Avatar Comment 4 by Duff

Will you guys lay off a bit. Look at the Pope's eyes. Can't you see he hasn't slept in days? Poor little feller.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:43:00 UTC | #460132

angkorman's Avatar Comment 5 by angkorman

Quite fittingly, he's hiding behind church paraphernalia.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:44:00 UTC | #460133

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 6 by SaganTheCat

I defend him because he is completely innocent of the charges made against him, and because the media has merged with the mob and misreported the facts.

that's great but save it for court

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:48:00 UTC | #460134

shaunfletcher's Avatar Comment 7 by shaunfletcher

I think that these catholic operatives (the author is no random chap off the street by the way, but a spokesman for opus dei in the UK) just dont get a central point when they defend the pope with much talk about how its not HIS fault that he was tied up by the church's procedures etc etc. We are supposed to accept that it just took forever to do things because those were the rules. They think doctrine, the chruches traditions, roles and structures are important in law.

Noone outside cares a damn for your procedures, your heirarchies, your trumped up trials and other nonsense. They see a man who, in a position of vast influence, did not do what is right and what anyone not in the church would be required to do. They seem to want to make it sound as if he was some poor clerk fighting against the strictures of the law (they actually think church law is a real law) but unable to do it till he got the big hat. Rubbish.

He was, of all things, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The man responsible for making sure the church behaves itself. His JOB was even to stop priest committing sexual misconduct. There is no damned way he could not do whatever he thought was right and in keeping with what he believed to be the true teachings of his church.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:56:00 UTC | #460135

petermun's Avatar Comment 8 by petermun

Is it a paedometer?

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:06:00 UTC | #460138

Summer Seale's Avatar Comment 9 by Summer Seale

Wow, I posted the same comment at the Guardian, and they removed it.

I'm...surprised, actually. All things considered, it's the Guardian I posted it at...not some conservatively religious rag.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:18:00 UTC | #460142

dulcie's Avatar Comment 11 by dulcie

I think it's the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:20:00 UTC | #460145

MarkOnTheRiver's Avatar Comment 10 by MarkOnTheRiver

3. Comment #480781 by scottishgeologist

WTF is the pope doing in that picture£

Like some sort of bizarre magnifying glass. When he looks through it does he see things denied to us non-popes£

Some sort of wormhole into godland£

It looks like a Borg implant to me.

“All your choirboys are ours. Resistance is futile. . .”

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:20:00 UTC | #460144

gcb01's Avatar Comment 12 by gcb01

I recommend going to the Guardian to read the whole article and some of the 600 plus comments. The comments do not on the whole agree with the article.

This is just the latest in a string of nonsense from the Roman Empire Catholic Church, blaming the scandal on everything from the tittle-tattle of gossip-mongers, to a Jewish conspiracy.

What worries me is that I really don't think they get it. They don't think the church or Ratzinger has done anything wrong. Wow!

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:21:00 UTC | #460146

epeeist's Avatar Comment 13 by epeeist

Comment #480792 by Summer Seale:

Wow, I posted the same comment at the Guardian, and they removed it.
I have had some of mine removed on associated threads.

The whole CiF Belief threads have gone bananas since this became a solid topic. Lay the blame at the door of Andrew Brown (look at his blog and see how many articles he has on the subject and of these how many are critical of the RCC and its hierarchy).

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:26:00 UTC | #460149

jel's Avatar Comment 14 by jel

These catholic apologists keep on trying to shift the blame, move the argument on. I like it just where it is with the pope and his church squarely in the spotlight. I don't care about the church's internal procedures and rules, the only rules that apply are the rules of law. If ratboy and his minions didn't obey those rules they should be charged and taken to court where the court will decide their innocence or guilt.

Don't these apologists realise that all their fine words aren't helping the pope or their church, they are actually pouring fuel onto the fire.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:31:00 UTC | #460151

Michael P.'s Avatar Comment 15 by Michael P.

From his ID page at The Guardian: Jack Valero is a senior representative and member of Opus Dei

BIG surprise. . .

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:42:00 UTC | #460154

Michael Gray's Avatar Comment 16 by Michael Gray

Jack Valero, as senior representative and proud member of Opus Dei, is also a co-conspirator for an organisation that has, for example, engaged in deliberately and explicitly INSTITUTIONALISED:
Terrorism, infant-rape, child-torture, murder by proxy, slavery, extreme subjection of women and subjection of minorities, murder of those with whom it has minor disagreements, profound retardation of social progress by willful lying about science, brutalisation of those left in it's care, non-consensual genital mutilation of male infants, concealment of the vilest of criminals, and encouragement, support, aiding and abetting of said contemptible odious shabby criminals, including providing them with homes, wages and lawyers' fees, sending folks insane, beaten (did I mention beatings? Nuns are especially fond of this egregious form of torture of innocents), oh: and genocide of countless Africans via Vatican fraud.
Need I add the crime that is the topping on this toxic cake?
That is: the willful and deliberate and knowing concealment of the above wickedness.
It seems that I must, given the gast that has been flabbered by credulous Catholics.

Jack Valero: These are but a sample of the violations against humanity that you not only support, but outright encourage.
You do not even deserve mere shame for your unutterably inhuman parasitism to this foul franchise.
If I had my way you, and the other members of Opus Dei, would be right there in the dock at the Hague next to Joe Ratsinger to be tried for complicity with crimes against humanity.

I trust that you are aware that I appear more circumspect in my judgement than I am permitted by the rules of social engagement that quite rightly apply here in the Richard Dawkins' website.

Were I to vent my true disgust in response to your abomination of clear support for a corrupt paedophillic genocidal torturing death-cult, I should understandably be censured for telling it like it is.
And the RCC can't tolerate folks telling the truth now, can they?

Michael Kingsford Gray,
Adelaide, South Australia

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:44:00 UTC | #460155

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 17 by crookedshoes

If these facts are so easily obtained, put him on trial and he will be vindicated. If it is a slam dunk, let it proceed. What are you afraid of?

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:49:00 UTC | #460158

Michael Gray's Avatar Comment 18 by Michael Gray

17. Comment #480808 by crookedshoes
Are you referring to my post #16?
If not, then fine.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:50:00 UTC | #460161

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 19 by crookedshoes

Sorry, I am in a rush here and read the article and posted without scrolling through. The facts I allude to are the ones in the article (I should have put facts in quotes to clarify) The "facts". Then you would have known I wasn't talking about your well reasoned and well supported argument, but rather the apologist manufacturing and cherry picking his cases. My point is.....Put the Pope on trial if he is so clearly innocent. AND after reading your post, let's start a case against Valero for being complicit.
Sorry for the confusion.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:55:00 UTC | #460164

Michael Gray's Avatar Comment 20 by Michael Gray

Then: "fine"! ;)

Fine Valero, fine the Ratsinger* fine everyone who supports this criminal cult.
* Rat-singer: Sounds too much like the Pied-Piper to me.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:57:00 UTC | #460166

Luke_B's Avatar Comment 21 by Luke_B

Not trying to speak for crookedshoes Michael but I think he's referring to the 'facts' in the article.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:59:00 UTC | #460167

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 22 by Stafford Gordon

There is clear written evidence of the pope's influence in the cases of child rape.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:04:00 UTC | #460170

Michael Gray's Avatar Comment 23 by Michael Gray

21. Comment #480817 by Luke_B
I thank you sir for that lucid confirmation, which eluded me due to an aforementioned "red-rage" elicited by the very same article from another blithe** cultist.
** Or should that be "insouciant", as His Honour Lord Justice Judge recently paraphrased Simon Singh's uncoy turn of phrase?

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:08:00 UTC | #460171

Luke_B's Avatar Comment 24 by Luke_B

Ah, it seems that I should have refreshed the page before adding my comment as crookedshoes had already explained.

He also put the word facts in inveretd comments like I did, as like Stafford says the evidence is clear.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:13:00 UTC | #460172

tarrek's Avatar Comment 25 by tarrek

the abuse took place in the 1970s; the police were informed and acted

This is misleading. In the case of Murphy, the police were informed and dismissed the case in the 1970s.

Then, in 1996, when Ratzinger was in charge of confessional abuse, he received a letter informing him that Murphy's abuse victims were being interviewed by bishops and that the bishops needed advice on what to do with a paedophile priest. Two years later, when Murphy died, he was still a priest and still had not received punishments for his crimes. Why didn't the Vatican inform the police that they had fresh evidence against this dangerous man? These new interviews with abuse victims were kept secret.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:13:00 UTC | #460173

MrPickwick's Avatar Comment 26 by MrPickwick

Jack Valero is a senior representative and member of Opus Dei; I don't care much about his twisted opinions and sick logic when I have at my disposal Ratzi's own clear words. They are much more illuminating:

This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner.
It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:21:00 UTC | #460178

mannylee's Avatar Comment 27 by mannylee

A cowardly and self-deceptive article

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:23:00 UTC | #460180

Michael Gray's Avatar Comment 28 by Michael Gray

24. Comment #480822 by Luke_B

as ... Stafford says the evidence is clear

Indeed it most certainly is.
As clear as day.
And has been as clear since 440AD or thereabouts.
It has only recently come to pass that the RCC has not been a proxy law agency in the "west", especially Ireland. 'Evidence be damned!', as the priests used to say over evensong.
And they were correct. They had both judicial and social immunity until recently. I suspect that many of them have become so ingrained into a life of privilege*, that their 'police-detectors' have become quite inoperative, and they now act as though they are above common law.
This "New Atheist" movement (such as I abhor the term) must be a bit of a culture-jolt for them.
For they have known nothing but a life of assumed (and seized) privilege.
But, as you suggest: the evidence is clear.
Even to those who hope that it will go away and allow them to continue their quite unearned parasitic life of immunity, the evidence that manages to channel back to them from the real world must be unsettling. It is akin to the mythical clarion-call that shook Jericho.
It is a reminder to them that the 'good times' have ended.
The 'good-times' of parasitic leeching from their devotees.
The 'good-times' of committing carnal sins and getting away with it.

Indeed: the evidence is clear. It is clear to those priests left with functioning neurons, it is clear to Joe Ratsinger. They are desparately attempting to forestall the demise of their once effective social charter.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:33:00 UTC | #460183

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 30 by Tyler Durden

"the abuse took place in the 1970s; the police were informed and acted" - Jack Valero
Jackie boy fails to mention whether it was actually The Church that informed the police about the abuse.

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:46:00 UTC | #460189

Bernard Hurley's Avatar Comment 29 by Bernard Hurley

Comment #480781 by scottishgeologist "WTF is the pope doing in that picture?"

Actually it's called a monstrance and it contains a consecrated communion wafer (the big size that only priests get to eat), which by now has magically become the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the form of bread. (there was a time when people chopped each other's heads off over a disagreement about whether it contained any blood)

The congregation are all kneeling down worshipping the piece of bread. He only does this for a few minutes and then he starts talking to it - I'm not kidding!

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:46:00 UTC | #460188