Benedict XVI arrest: Catholicism is above the law
Posted on Tuesday 20 April, 2010
Filed Under Religion
HOT gospel preachers I heard as a boy growing up in a hardline Protestant denomination regularly used to speculate on whether or not the Pope was the Antichrist. I think the verdict was not proven, although the onus rested firmly on the Vatican to establish innocence.
In fairness to Benedict XVI, branding him the Whore of Babylon probably is overdoing it, at least a tad. Nowadays it may even be deemed illegal incitement to religious hatred. Yet as a secularist and a humanist in adult life, I still have not learned to love the man they call God’s Rottweiler.
I am aware that the term Catholicism covers a range of views, ranging from South American guerrillas inspired by Liberation Theology to Tridentine groupings allied with overt fascists.
Yet the centre of gravity is firmly on the right. Indeed, I have spent a few moments pondering whether the Catholic church deserves the title of the most reactionary mass organisation on Planet Earth. If there are any alternative contenders, they do not come immediately to mind.
Catholicism seems to take all the improbable doctrines to which Christians are anyway enjoined to subscribe, and then add some more, just for good measure. Not only does one have to believe in the incarnation, the resurrection and the second coming, but transubstantiation, Papal infallibility and the Marian Dogmas to boot.
It says much that Tony Blair rejected such wussy options as Quakerism or the Unitarians and signed up for a package like that. Then again, as a former member of several democratic centralist sects, perhaps I shouldn’t mock.
The charge sheet further runs that the Catholic church has in operated a regime of systematic child abuse on a sustained basis, for decades and perhaps even centuries. It has covered up the crimes in a deliberate manner, and often simply shunted miscreants to other parishes.
Some of the proffered defences – from the argument that the accusations are a Zionist conspiracy through putting the blame on homosexuals and onwards to the disclaimer that this whole affair has been got up by the media – are as flimsy as they are distasteful.
It is further alleged that Benedict XVI was complicit in hiding some of these horrendous crimes, and this has prompted Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins to commission a legal opinion on the chances of having His Holiness arrested when he visited Britain later this year.
This is a simple publicity stunt on the part of two gentlemen rarely short of a headline or two. Whatever the legal position, a country that let Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet off the hook is never going to risk the ire of the world’s billion or more Catholics. There is no more chance of it happening than there is of Blair being prosecuted for war crimes.
In other words, we are left with an injustice of monstrous proportions, which would compel any fair-minded person to demand redress if it were the work of any other perpetrator.
Yet the guilty party is set to suffer no more sanction than having to part with a fraction of the wealth accumulated over two millennia in order to secure some out of court settlements. In a world in which not even the mighty Goldman Sachs is above the law, it seems that Catholicism alone enjoys de facto immunity from prosecution.
<<Go back
Comments
139 Responses to “Benedict XVI arrest: Catholicism is above the law”
Leave a Reply
It may have been a folk myth that errant priests were sent to the leprosy missions.
Being sent to reside in a convent and hear the confessions of nuns was usually considered sufficient punishment.
H, the Irish government expert commission analyzes the cases of 46 priests from 1975 to 2004 against whom 320 complaints were filed. The report named 11 priests who were convicted of child abuse, the others being either dead or yet to face trial. The Vatican reports complaints pending against 300 priests in the period since 2001, out of 400,000 worldwide.
Why do I have the impression that the most barking anti-Papist contributors here .have not even bothered to find out the most basic facts around this issue (and this includes Dave)? They seem to start foaming at the mouth simply on glancing at headlines in the Guardian. And I have to say again, I take a somewhat dim view of pious lectures on this subject from a British far left that once thought child sex was rather cool, and demanded the abolition of the age of consent (and in the case of the buckle on the far left bible belt, Hackney Labour Party, united en masse to defend the serial child rapist Mark Trotter)
But hey, let’s lighten up. Come on, altogether now: “oh give me a home, where there’s no Pope of Rome…”
The equation of Papism with sodomy is, incidentally, something of a leitmotif in hearty English Protestant polemics (in other circumstances, Modernity might even call it a “classic trope”).
For example, the character of Sedition in John Bale’s 1538 “Kyng Johane” says:
“I am Sedycyon, that with the Pope wyll holde
So long as I have a hole within my breche”
On matters theological, some readers here may well have missed this about South Park and the One True Faith:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/04/security_brief.php
Which reminds me of the soon-forgotten news item about the Ulema of Makkah condemning Pokemon.
Modernity said,
“Nah, I don’t think he is, rather Dave probably doesn’t share your and Monsignor Babini’s particular “fixation”, which is not a bad thing. “
Modernity you are debating in bad faith linking me with Babini, it is an underhand trick and shows your inability to think objectively. I presume you are happy to stand with Dave’s statement that the Catholic Church, “alone enjoys de facto immunity from prosecution”. Which says rather a lot about your politics.
“You do realise, Morality, that the law of defamation does apply to the internet?”
So Splintered Sunrise, you threatening to go to the courts ? As the comment is on this blog it would drag Dave into another court case !
Good to see your faith in resorting to the courts .
btw Splintered
Just because other organisations abuse kids, does not make it any better. It does not mean we should not criticise it where it happens.
We are talking about a powerful wealthy organisation , why should socialists and feminists not hold them to account ?
Its partly their defensive reaction that has made people even more critical , the tactcs of trying to deflect and smear gay people as pedophiles . To try to say they are being persecuted like the jews were .
So Splintered, should we also not criticise the role they play in wanting abortion to be illegal ? Is that being nasty to the poor old vatican ? Or the fact they lie about condoms ?
““My view re HIV is that people should be given options”
They have options. They can abide by the Church’s teachings or not do so. It is an entirely obligatory matter. And this bizarre notion of somebody who decides to sleep with a prostitute deciding he cannot use a condom because the Pope says he can’t should simply be dismissed. It isn’t credible.
“Is it a problem if people have sex purely for enjoyment ?”
So everything is fine then, party time, free love, raunch culture, lap dancing, whooptido! I admire your liberalism, but it is not in my experience typical of modern feminism I must say; it has constantly striven to devise an extremely tortured sexual morality of sorts which is frequently more repressive than that of Catholicism – ask anybody who lived through the years of terror in the feminist movement of the mid 1970s onwards.
I note that you simply have no interest in the Church’s views on social and economic justice, the dignity of the worker or the redistribution of wealth, which confirms that you are something of a one trick pony.”
Oh dear Pharisee, you seem to have an amazing ability to read between the lines of what i say and come up with total bullshit!
Where did I talk about men, condoms and prostitutes !!
Look , of course people have options and if they choose to abstain, fine. My point is about them having the information and not lies . The Catholic Church spreads lies about condoms causing HIV.
btw, Bush of course made sure agencies that funded contraceptive advice in Africa did not get funding , refusing choice and information.
Look,i’m a socialist feminist and yes I was around in the early 80s, so am well aware of the debates then as now . As you are such as expert of feminism, you will know there is more than one type, just as with the left. I am well aware of the exploitation of women in the sextrade, but I don’t think banning it helps the women either .
Re sex, what is wrong with it being for enjoyment ? You seem to have an issue with that. Again I am not saying that is right for all people either, again, its up to each person .
I wait with baited breath and how you will interpret and skew what I have written .
It is a pity that those so quick to defend the Catholic Church can’t see the problem here.
Apparently, there are some 400,000 priests and from the above comments so far the **running total** is about ( or would appear to be) in the order of about 350 either accused or waiting prosecution.
That seems rather low to me.
I wonder if those here with an expertise in Catholicism could tell us how many approximate cases of child abuse have there been worldwide?
Or failing that, make an approximation as a percentage based on a country ?
For example, how many cases were there in Ireland (not just the ones we were informed about, as clearly the victims of child abuse don’t always come forward)? But an estimate total.
And what is the tally of total priests involved, compared to the total number in the country?
Be good to hear some facts and figures.
“Be good to hear some facts and figures”
No, you are not asking for facts and figures – you reject the facts and figures as they appear “rather low to me”, and invite anybody out there to make up an approximation based on sheer fantasy, including cases apart from “the ones we were informed about” (ie entirely imaginary ones), which will produce a figure more in line with your prejudices. Why don’t you start the ball rolling yourself and produce an imaginary figure for worldwide cases of child abuse possibly linked to orthodox Judaism, not just the ones we know about? Of course that would be reproducing a classic trope, wouldn’t it?
I have constantly been trying to find out facts and figures, but those so keen to defend Catholicism to the end, haven’t produced any.
Rather what we’ve seen is a lot of snide comments, a few useless anecdotes, plenty of deflections but no contrition, no willingness to admit the bleeding obvious or much critical comment on the Vatican’s lack of action.
All in all it gives the impression that the apologists for the Roman Catholic Church
1) aren’t too troubled by this matter
2) can’t decide what to say until Rome has fixed a “line”
3) show a distinctly conservative attitude towards the RC Church and these issues
4) haven’t thought it through themselves
5) can’t bring themselves to criticise the Vatican.
Maybe that isn’t the case, but until those apologists acknowledge the severity of the issue and the lack of action by the Vatican then such an impression will remain.
“I have constantly been trying to find out facts and figures, but those so keen to defend Catholicism to the end, haven’t produced any.”
I have produced facts and figures, which you rejected on the grounds that they seemed rather low to you. Why not just make up your own figure that confirms your own lazy prejudices? It would be entirely in line with the general intellectual approach of the British far left.
I *accepted* your figures, as they were the ONLY ones on offer, but yes I think they are low, as should you if you thought honestly about the matter.
Again, I accept the figures but surely there is more to this, can’t you in all candour admit that?
We can put the ducks in a row:
This has been building up for years and every Catholic and everyone with talkative and well-informed Catholic friends all knew that it would come to a head sooner or later.
In the electronic age scandals of this magnitude do not stay hidden forever. Once one is in the open many others pour forth, some of them recent and some decades old.
The Catholic Church has yet to shown adequate heartfelt real contrition. For the Pope’s vicar to yap brainlessly about “spiteful gossip” was unspeakable hubris.
It’s not just a question of what percentage of priests, Christian Brothers or whoever were actively engaged in child abuse. The real issue is what percentage knew some or all of it and were complicit in the conspiracy of silence and denial; certainly 90% of the Irish clergy knew what was going on to a greater or lesser extent.
Good luck for tomorrow Dave but this is a onesided and wrong approach. No one has a problem with arresting child abusers but a lot of leftists and liberals are using the papal visit more as a chance for a bit of militant godlessness.
Good news, everyone!
The RC Bishop of Augsberg, accused of thrashing orphans with a carpet beater [You couldn't make it up - Ed] has been forced into resignation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7104574.ece
Ideally, he’ll be sent off to conduct pastoral work in the leprosy missions on the next boat.
“militant godlessness.”
What is wrong with that !!
Something wrong with not being very keen on religions that abortion for all women in all circumstances ?
Oops, meant to say that oppose and want to outlaw abortion.
the correct strategy is not to appeal to the bourgeois state to arrest the pope but to call the Italian working class to smasm the Vatican state
The far left certainly has a golden future with strategists of this quality in its ranks.
The Catholic Church certainly needs to work on its PR, if its apologists here are anything to go by.
A more backwards looking, steeped in regressive attitudes and unwilling to venture any criticism of the Vatican bunch you’d be hard put to find, outside of some hard right RC Church grouping.
“A more backwards looking, steeped in regressive attitudes and unwilling to venture any criticism of the Vatican bunch you’d be hard put to find”
Substitute “Likud” for “Vatican bunch” and you’d have a fairly good description of you and your pals at Harry’s Place, wouldn’t you, Modernity?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/21/boston-globe-abuse-scandal-catholic
Good article about the original uncovering of abuse in Boston. It includes some numbers:-
“Within two years of the first of the Globe’s 800 articles on the scandal appearing in January 2002, Rezendes notes, Cardinal Law had resigned, 150 priests in Boston stood accused of sexual abuse, more than 500 victims had filed abuse claims, and church-goers’ donations to the archdiocese had slumped by 50%.
In Sin against the Innocents, a 2004 book on clerical sex abuse by a range of experts, Rezendes also notes that over the same period, across America as a whole, more than 450 priests and four bishops resigned, and several states, including Massachusetts, introduced new laws obliging clergy to report any knowledge of child sex abuse to the civil authorities. And yet, he adds today, “We’re still far from knowing the full story.”
The Globe reporters were also quietly told of many dozens of cases over the previous decade or so, in which the church had settled claims against molesting priests privately, often including a clause that barred the victims or their families from ever talking about it. Concrete evidence of those settlements, however, would be harder to find. . .
the eight Globe reporters on the case had established that the Boston archdiocese had, over the previous decade, privately settled sexual abuse claims made by Catholic families against a staggering 70 of its priests.. .
. . “We ended up with material relating to more than 100 priests. We had letters from parents, letters to and from priests, masses of internal church documents showing abusive priests being repeatedly moved.”
So it’s tip of the iceberg by the look of it. It’s not the abuse that outrages people so much, which happens in all walks of life. It’s the systematic cover up.
Occasionally, I have been told that that long streak of prejudice which ran through Catholicism and gravitated around the old “Christ killer” nonsense was long since gone.
But you can see a version of those prejudices popping up in this thread, amongst those so keen to defend the Vatican in this matter. Not, of course, exact replicas but you can see where they are coming from.
Now you might think that since 1945 the Catholic Church and its acolytes would have learnt something?
That’s what I’d like to think, and I hope that the apologists here are not representative of the RC Church.
Still, they should reflect on Monsignor Babini’s words, and why he and they should probably pay a trip to the confessional on this matter and try to explain away their own prejudices.
Monsignor Babini:
[My emphasis, a Google translation.]
http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/of-plots-and-monsignors/
I’ve rarely come across a thread on here, or indeed anywhere else, that has left me so dumbfounded.
That an organisation which has, down the centuries, tortured, murdered and abused, women, non-believers, Freemasons, Jews etc and supported Nazism, covered up institionalised child abuse, indulged in vicious anti-semitism, racism, homophobia, bigotry, the vilest mysogony and all with an unapologetic arrogance, never mind the sheer madness of it’s beliefs (sky fairies, virgin births and the like) can still even exist in the 21st century beggars belief!
To find supporters, apologists and followers on a blog aimed at and peopled by (mainly) progressives is even more incredible.
You people are deserving of the utmost contempt, loathing and disgust.
H.
I didn’t catch the so called leadership debate, but it seems that all three scumbag lackeys of British capitalism ( the leaders of the Tory, LP and LibDems ) could bring themselves to criticise the Vatican over the issue of the abuse of children, etc
It is a shame that one time radicals and revolutionaries here can’t even do that.
What an irony when Cameron, Brown and Clegg are to the left of some, er, Lefties!
Yes, to deal with Modernity first, I know that by your own admission you don’t engage in political activity apart from exposing classical anti-Semitic tropes on the Internet, and I don’t dispute that this might be the best use of your activities. I have no idea, H, what you get up to, apart from the fact that your first resort in political debate is an illiterate obscenity derived from Eddie Truman rather than a quote from Dorothy Parker or George Kaufman. But, assuming either of you were actually involved in campaigning agains racism, poverty or exclusion in your locality, would you contact your local Catholic church or not? Presumably not, since you would seem to regard them as much worse than the BNP (which, whatever its faults, has hardly accumulated the list of sins which H can attribute to Papism). That, I would submit, is where you would differ from anybody who is practically involved in trying to build political progress where it matters, rather than trying to relive their glory days at the union general meeting in Penge Polytechnic in 1976.
And what of Dave incidentally – i lived in Hayes 30 years ago, and I remember the Catholic priest as a bastion of everything progressive in the area – have you and stroppybird been round yet to insult him and his parishioners? Would this debate be of interest to the local presss, do you think? or are you hoping you can take their votes and then piss off and insult them at your Islington dinner parties while preening yourself on how well you blend with the masses?
That’s incredible nonsense! Just, well, unreal! So not involving the Catholic Church in any campaigning activities is somehow wrong and is indicitive of “trying to relive their glory days at the union general meeting in Penge Polytechnic in 1976″???
As an argument it’s just utter bollocks: irrational, illogical and meaningless.
As you say, you don’t really know anything about me but I can assure you that during my 20-odd years of activism as a union rep leading strikes, work-to-rules and defending members, along with fighting the Fash, both physically and politically and all the activites I engaged in while a member of the Labour Party, Militant, CPGB & Socialist Alliance, involving an organisation that has, at various times, both covertly and overtly supported/condoned and/or been very ‘soft’ on some of the very things I’d been fighting against seemed, well, an odd thing to do.
Incidentally, I noticed how you just glossed over the “list of crimes” I mentioned. Bit of a pattern emerging here: just ignore the vile, foul and indefensible track record of this vile institution. No contrition, humility or apology. Not very Christian, to say the very least but then again hypocrisy among the faithful is as natural as breathing is to the rest of us.
Have you no shame at all???
H.
I would no more stop you in mid rant when listing the crimes of the Catholic church than I would interrrupt Ian Paisley – your righteous fury is a wonder to behold. And I will take your word for it that you have militated mightily and fought the fash without involving any vile Catholics in your activity, though I suspect it might have somewhat vitiated your effectiveness. However I will accept no lectures about homophobia from an ex-Militant supporter, or strictures about believing unlikely things from an ex member of the CPGB (actually, from the career path of useless far left deadbeat organisations you describe, wouldn’t you be that guy who pretended to be still in Militant while arguing the positions of the CPGB a few years ago? Nothing hypocritical about that, I am sure).
Well, some crucial differences between me and you, pal: yes, Militant did have a poor position on gay issues for a period but, unlike you, I didn’t defend my organisation’s poor position, I argued vehemently against it! As I did consistently about a great many of Militant’s stances, thus leading to my eventual expulsion. Not really the same as you, is it? Not one word of contrition, apology or acceptance of and for your organisations multiple crimes against humanity!
Er…I wasn’t pretending to be in Militant while arguing ‘CPGB positions’, I actually *was* in Militant, which is how I came to be expelled! Doh…
And let me make clear I have no axe to grind regarding individual Catholics whatever. In fact, some of my best friends etc etc lol… Seriously, though, I’m an active Freemason. An organisation which admits Catholics (along with Jews, Muslims and all other faiths)and I work harmoniously alongside my Catholic Brothers and they me. Unlike your Church which condemned members of my organisation to death and are still ex-communicated to this day!
All because the Church couldn’t bear to have even the slightest area of their flocks lives outwith their control.
H.
“Er…I wasn’t pretending to be in Militant while arguing ‘CPGB positions’, I actually *was* in Militant, which is how I came to be expelled”
No, you stayed in Militant pretending you were still a loyal member after having joined a hostile organisation, the CPGB. I don’t consider that very honourable.
“Not one word of contrition, apology or acceptance of and for your organisations multiple crimes against humanity”
It might surprise you to learn that I am not part of the Church hierarchy. However, you will find many words of contrition spoken recently by them – I suspect a list of their mea culpas would be a lot longer than any compilation of autocritiques by Peter Taaffe or Jack Conrad, to pick a couple of your archbishops.
“Seriously, though, I’m an active Freemason”
That explains everything. Give my regards to Prince Philip next time you are rolling your trouser leg up. And you have the nerve to talk about mad beliefs and ceremonies?
And seriously though, assuming you are British and politically active in Britain (two “assumptions” I would gladly bet the family farm on) you might be rather hobbling your activities by assuming that the Catholic church is hostile to trades unionism or workers’ right, and supportive of racism and fascism. But I suspect from your political background that addressing reality is not a priority for you.
One is reluctant to join what is evidently a private fight about allegiances to miniscule and unimportant crank political organisations, but H. made a point which ought to be challenged.
The Catholic Church, for all its vile [etc.,] faults, was probably the least ‘racist’ supranational body anywhere in the world in the days when slavery and slave-trading were commonplace and considered normal.
As in the days of the Early Church, there were ordained black priests and even Bishops even while slavers were purchasing their cargoes on the Guinea coast.
Those who have well-developed neuroses about the Holy Roman and Apostolic Church – and all its works and pomps – will almost certainly appreciate the work of a German artist called Katharina Kranichfeld …
http://www.all-art.org/art_20th_century/kranichfeld1.html
… who would have been – quite unquestionably – burned at the stake in an earlier era.
A German bishop who very recently hung up his crozier was alleged to have thrashed orphans with a carpet-beater; Katharina would be the ideal artist to create a commerorative going-away portrait of him engaged in this very activity!
“No, you stayed in Militant pretending you were still a loyal member after having joined a hostile organisation, the CPGB. I don’t consider that very honourable”
Believe it or believe it not, I did NOT become a member of the CPGB ’til AFTER my expulsion from Militant. As an aside, this touches on the utter nuttiness of the English left, actually: the idea that any one organisation has the monopoly on scientific truth, that ‘ideas’ are somehow the property of one geoup compared to another, that a view shared by another group is somehow forbidden to you if you belong to an alternative organisation. Something most of the left sects have in common with nutty religious organisations, like the Catholic Church, ironically enough.
“It might surprise you to learn that I am not part of the Church hierarchy. However, you will find many words of contrition spoken recently by them”
So what? you’re on here defnding them through thick and thin – that’s what I find disgusting. Not even the decency and honesty to admit that maybe, just maybe, there could have been some foul and inhumane practices, like burning woemn to death, to give just one, small example.
“I suspect a list of their mea culpas would be a lot longer than any compilation of autocritiques by Peter Taaffe or Jack Conrad, to pick a couple of your archbishops”
I totally agree with you. Taaffe, certainly, along with most of the rest, is never wrong about anything something which I railed against long and hard up to, during and after my expulsion. Contrast and compare with your attitude to *your* archbishops…
“And you have the nerve to talk about mad beliefs and ceremonies?”
Er, yeah I do, considering Freemasonry is a *Secular* organisation of admirable and liberal tolerance where each memeber can choose to follow whatever faith he chooses to, yes, even avowed and committed Catholics!Not too much to object to there, really. In fact, Freemasonry welcomes Catholics into its ranks whereas the Church excommunictes its faithful if they’re found to be Freemasons. Still, at least we don’t get hounded and murdered anymore
: Again, contrast and compare with the hatred, bigotry, persecution and hysteria rained down upon us by the Catholic Church. In terms of ‘beliefs’ well, as it’s a *secular* organisation so there aren’t any in the sense that you mean. What’s mad about that?
“And seriously though, assuming you are British and politically active in Britain (two “assumptions” I would gladly bet the family farm on) you might be rather hobbling your activities by assuming that the Catholic church is hostile to trades unionism or workers’ right, and supportive of racism and fascism. But I suspect from your political background that addressing reality is not a priority for you”
Look, the Catholic Church, like any organised religion, exists to serve and perpetuate itself so it will have a strong penchant for opportunism, hence it’s past support, at previous times, for racist and fascist organisations. I just cannot see how you can keep denying, ducking and/or fudging over this! In conclusion, I will say *again* I have absolutely *NO* axe to grind against individual Catholics and have and will continue to work alongside them toward a common goal.
I just want to reflect on this thread and how right wing some apparent socialists have shown themselves to be.
I say that because I’m puzzled as to their reasoning I can’t understand (Former Neo Liberal, pharisee, Splintered Sunrise, Liam’s) approach.
We see every nonsense argument lined up to avoid any criticism of the Vatican, even this:
There is an inability to distinguish between the criticism aimed at the Vatican and the Catholic Church as institutions, from that of the membership of the Catholic Church.
Put it another way, socialists and others more than happy to criticise trade unions, as an ***institutions***, even criticise senior officials, without necessarily attacking the idea and foundations of trade unionism.
Yet in the above examples we see some socialists and onetime radicals cannot bring themselves to criticise the Vatican, as an **institution** lest that criticism somehow offends Catholics.
It is an absurdity whilst political parties and trade unions are seen as fair game for criticism, somehow, following the above thread the Vatican is off-limits.
That to me suggests a lot of backward thinking by these supposed radicals and socialists.
But beyond that it is a rather patronising attitude which seems to assume that Catholics can’t distinguish between legitimate criticism of how their church has been run and how the Vatican has acted in covering up these matters for years.
Again, we need to be able to distinguish between criticism of the Vatican as an institution and other matters.
“Believe it or believe it not, I did NOT become a member of the CPGB ’til AFTER my expulsion from Militant”
I’ll take your word for it. It’s not as if a former member of Militant and the CPGB would be likely to lie about their political affiliations, is it?
“In terms of ‘beliefs’ well, as it’s a *secular* organisation so there aren’t any in the sense that you mean”
Well according to Wikipedia, “The various forms [of Freemasonsy] all share moral and metaphysical ideals, which include, in most cases, a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being.”
Perhaps you can explain to me how a Supreme Being differs from a sky fairy?
“I have absolutely *NO* axe to grind against individual Catholics and have and will continue to work alongside them toward a common goal”
Can you say what common goals you share with members of a thoroughly vile organisation that espouses racism and fascism? And talking of the latter, how about apologising for the activiites of the P2 lodge? Now that was a thoroughly vile organisation, wasn’t it?
Blimey, a nutty roman and a mason going at it. Let’s bump this thread up to the top next old firm game.
Modernity,
Please point out where I have been right wing. I want my quotes and then the reasons.
In reality you lump everyone under one umbrella because you are intellectually lazy and sickeningly dishonest.
Go back to my second comment for my views on the church and then apologise if you are big enough. (and lets face it you are not).
Let’s admit, the moment a bit of criticism of the Catholic Church and the Vatican swings into view, you get an almost instinctive response, which tells you about people’s attitudes.
They don’t, as you would expect of politicos, address the issue, no that would be far too honest and straightforward.
So instead we have a process of nit picking on Dave’s article, which in the end doesn’t work, because it merely shows them up and what their pet hobby horses are.
But let’s examine part of Former Neo Liberal’s initial statement:
Now given the evidence above it would seem as if Priests do almost enjoy de facto immunity from prosecution, given the number involved 400,000, the probable number of child abuse cases, the coverup, blocking tactics and paltry number of Priests that have been prosecuted.
Clearly, if you were a bit of a literalalist with a slight fixation on “Israelis” and argumentative to boot then you might quibble about Dave’s comment, but no substantive argument has successfully been bought which argues the contrary.
An honest individual would have acknowledged Dave’s criticism of the Vatican’s actions and cover up and not quibbled.
Even the leaders of Britain’s three pro capitalist political parties could bring themselves to criticise the Catholic Church in this matter.
Yet former neo liberal couldn’t, thus, I think it’s fair to say that he is to the right of David Cameron in ***this*** matter.
So hang on here just a minute, we are to take criticism of the Catholic church in whatever form it comes in just to satisfy what exactly?
So you accept the statement “it seems that Catholicism alone enjoys de facto immunity from prosecution” without any need to question it. All critical thinking goes out of the window just to satisfy your ideological point.
And anyone who does question this statement is regarded as to the right of David Cameron, even if they make it perfectly clear they want to see the power of the state smashed (see my second comment).
So if someone does not criticise the church within the exact parameters set by yourself they are lumped in with the mass of reactionary thinking.
You are quite pathetic Modernity.
P.S. For those of a more honest nature, I take the side of H in his debate with pharisee, though I recognise and respect the latters intelligence.
Former neo liberal,
Your first instinct in this matter wasn’t to use critical thinking, but to be petty and argumentative.
I could say that they are acknowledged traits of the petty bourgeoisie, but that would be all too obvious and you further compounded it by exercising one of your pet subjects and making snide comment on Israelis.
Those were your initial comments, with your guard down and like Monsignor Babini’s views they were indicative of where your prejudices are…
and that’s leaving aside the fact you can’t actually grasp there is plenty of ***legitimate*** criticism of the Vatican’s actions.
So in the end you are left with expending your considerable intellect, former neoliberal, on nitpicking, deflections and rather a political statements.
Which is why I suggested that in this matter you and others come across as strikingly conservative (small c), you are not radical, you are certainly not revolutionary and by your inability to grasp the essence of this ***legitimate** criticism, not terribly political.
Modernity,
You really are a waste of space. My intial, first response was to question the statement “it seems that Catholicism alone enjoys de facto immunity from prosecution”, which I would say is an extremely objectionable statement, and not for conservative reasons as anyone on the left would appreciate.
In my second response I said the power of the church should be smashed into oblivion, as anyone can check for themselves. But still you want to peddle the lie that I am a supporter of Babini.
As I said you are quite pathetic.
Former neo liberal,
You don’t read things too well, do you?
Perhaps you should change your handle from ‘former neoliberal’ to ‘too damn literalist’.
Let’s be very clear:
Monsignor Babini is hung up about Jews, you on the other hand are somewhat hung up on Israelis, as your first unguarded comment shows, that’s my point.
If you could think outside of your rigid mentality you would see that when Dave uses the words “Catholicism” he’s talking about the Vatican and child abuse scandal, he is not suggesting that if you were a Catholic you would be immune to all forms of prosecution in all instances.
Which is subtly different, if you could but think about it for a moment.
A Bishop of Augsberg one day and now the Bishop of Bruges:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7106284.ece
Both are historic places, ne ? The Peace of Augsberg and the Treaty of Bruges or something, right?
So which Bishop of which historic place will be next, chums?
Place your bets now!
It’s not a terribly good moment to be Belgian, is it?
First they were going to stop Fatimahs resident in Belgium going round in full burkhas, then the government fell because the people in some suburb of Brussel / Brussels / Bruxelles isn’t sure whether they prefer being Flemings or Walloons and now the Bishop of Bruges is verbally flagellating himself for his Sins.
But they make good beer.
1. LMFAO@Boilermaker. That was *very* funny indeed. Nice one, lol. Ironically, Celtic are my second team with a particular loathing reserved for the feckin’ Huns’ Go figure!
*sigh* now to Pharisee, who said:
!Well according to Wikipedia, “The various forms [of Freemasonsy] all share moral and metaphysical ideals, which include, in most cases, a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being.”
Perhaps you can explain to me how a Supreme Being differs from a sky fairy?
***Er, I don’t have to because wikipedia is not an authority on Freemasonry and, by virtue of being a secret society (or ‘a society with secrets’ as the modernisers would have us), you simply do not know what you’re talking about. You will find absolutely *nothing* outside of a legitimate Lodge that gives you the slightest clue and your comparison is, well, simply wrong.
“I have absolutely *NO* axe to grind against individual Catholics and have and will continue to work alongside them toward a common goal”
Can you say what common goals you share with members of a thoroughly vile organisation that espouses racism and fascism?
***I think Modernity summed it up rather well, with his explantion of the differences between an institution and individual members. But an obvious example would be solidarity work, fund-raising etc around the H-Block hunger strikers. Not exactly a gathering of people short on Catholics
And talking of the latter, how about apologising for the activiites of the P2 lodge? Now that was a thoroughly vile organisation, wasn’t it
***Couldn’t agree more. A vile and corrupt organisation that was expelled and has nothing whatever to do with legitimate Freemasonry. See? That’s how it’s done, mate: you accept responsibility, take action and cut out the cancer – you bead-worriers ought to try it some time. You might actually regain some credibilty and respect as well as a start back towards the moral high ground
H.
There’s an appalling post at SU blog, but surprisingly the comments box is replete with many spot-on contributions, #1 and 5 are my favs.
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5677
Mod, ‘appalling’ is a feckin’ understatement! Posts 1 and 5 are most relevant to this thread but I’ve a particular love for post 2 – couldn’t have said it better myself
H.
“Indeed, I have spent a few moments pondering whether the Catholic church deserves the title of the most reactionary mass organisation on Planet Earth. If there are any alternative contenders, they do not come immediately to mind.”
Not sure they count as an organisation, but is there anything good, at any stage in their history, to say for the Saudi royal family?