Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Catholic child abuse and the Pope: links update

Dear reader, our blog has moved to a new address.

Do come on over (and change your bookmarks accordingly): rationalist.org.uk

As I seem to be constantly coming across new pieces on the Catholic child abuse cover-up, the question of the Pope's involvement, and the idea of mounting a legal challenge when he comes to the UK, here's a round-up of those I've read since I blogged about it this morning. Some are new since then, others I just hadn't read at the time.

Also, don't forget to vote in our poll at the top right of this page: Do you think the Pope should face legal action over the Catholic child abuse cover-ups?
  • "How much did the Pope know?" – Canadian current affairs magazine MacCleans provides a balanced overview of the abuse scandal and the question of the Pope's possible involvement in cover-ups.
  • "The Pope should stand trial" – Following The Times' misrepresentation of his desire to see the Pope face prosecution over the abuse allegations, Richard Dawkins sets the record straight on the Guardian, saying "there is a clear case to answer".
  • "Vatican scoffs at Dawkins idea of arresting Pope while in Britain" – Reuters report that Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi has described the suggestion of a legal challenge as a "bizarre idea", saying "I think they should look for something more serious and concrete before we can respond to it. The pope’s visit is a visit of state, and so it would be very strange if during a state visit the person who is invited to make a state visit is arrested.”
  • "Catholics may just have to sit out this anti-Papal media frenzy" – Catholic blogger Damian Thompson, an outspoken defender of Benedict XVI, declares himself "bored" with the speculation regarding the Pope. Moreover, he believes that "badly researched" journalism is deflecting attention away from the real culprits: "As I’ve said before, bishops who were responsible for paedophile cover-ups – and there are plenty – can count themselves lucky that major newspapers have assigned reporters to these stories who know as much about the Catholic Church as I do about electrical engineering, and screw up accordingly. Listen, no one is going to arrest the Pope, so can we drop the fantasising, please?"
  • "Arrest the Pope? I rather think we should" – Writing in The Times, Libby Purves says that, despite her reservations about the New Atheists, she welcomes the idea of arresting the Pope. "This thing needs airing properly," she says, "if the good bits of world Catholicism are to survive."


Anonymous said...

I guess these swimming coaches were Catholics then?


gallybalder said...

great help from Pharyngula!!

RBrown said...

The local bishops and religious orders have had the juridical authority to handle these cases themselves. Both are able to immediately remove a priest from all contact with the laity. In fact, I personally know of two cases (one in 1980) where the priests were immediately removed from pastoral assignment.

It is not, therefore, a matter of laicizing a priest or leaving him at his parish or other pastoral assignment.

Laicization is reserved by Rome, but laicization is not necesary to remove a priest from any pastoral contract.

Anonymous said...

Should be: Laicization is reserved to Rome.

Anonymous said...

This website of RICHARD SIPE is the result of years of research and provides an opportunity for serious discussion of problems highlighted by the sexual abuse and betrayal of minors at the hands of trusted clergy. It is frequently updated with information, commentary and an invitation to dialogue about human sexuality and the Roman Catholic Church.


A digest of links to media coverage of clergy abuse.