http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.eceRichard Dawkins calls for arrest of Pope Benedict XVI

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.

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.

Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said: “This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence.”

Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, said: “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment."Yes, yes, I know, Christians are above the law in Christian states, as long as they play the "god" card.

But still, you've got to love them for trying to put away that mass murdering pedophile cult leader. If he weren't the pope he'd be serving countless life sentences by now.

The Lord loves a hanging...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5pAFYy5PWs

When they are done they can burry him in his pope mobile.

Not a big fan of Muslim's man-boy love Thursdays either...

I highly doubt they will get any sort of human rights violations of the child molestation matter. While I really dislike this pope and his various policies, condoms do not prevent hiv, other blood borne pathogens policy which could under interpretation directly relate to the medical field in their prescribed methods of using latex gloves. Particularly in surgical procedures which can in fact result in the mass spread of such viral infections to the general populace going in for a simple appendectomy or something, like that dentist in the early nineties who spread hiv to his patients in San Francisco, by not properly cleaning his tools and so on.

However, Pope Benedict has signed off on exorcism squads, bringing them back to the forefront. If, they can go off that, and provide multiple cases across the international level, many of the cases the exorcism squads were treating the cases with abusive treatments, particularly older methods of exorcism, often popularized by such films as the exorcist, stigmata, the exorcism of emily rose, to the patients. As well as cases showing that these were just people physically ill, mental illnesses, that needed to be treated by physicians, then they may have a case to build.

Aside from that they could maybe get some sort of negligence or aiding or abetting.

Quote"If he weren't the pope he'd be serving countless life sentences by now."

He wasn't the pope a couple years ago. Simply being what I might call a reckless jackass, ignorant dumbass, things I might call another christian leader such as Pat Robertson. Simply being an unenlightened prick to the post renaissance society is not a crime.

I think it's a shame they're doing this, gives atheists a black eye. Let the Catholics deal with their own issues, otherwise they'll play the martyr card on you and you end up just strengthening them.

Hmmm... sounds a bit like what you told me when I supported the ballot initiative that supported marriage, that was actually supporting marriage, including gay marriage but the title sounded like the typical right-wing hog-wash.

The better way to do this would be to really push the civil court issues in cases involving child molestation, both the criminal as well as the civil damages cases. Should the church continue to cover up these proceedings by harboring alleged clergy, or otherwise pending cases. Then, they should take these matters directly to government legislation with a case of allegations of abuse, criminal justice trials being unable to proceed due to the actions of the church, and ask for a revokation of tax exempt status and so on. Eventually, the church will be backed into a corner and will have no choice, but, to change policy to avoid further embarrassment and ridicule, as well as the financial implications from such actions.

I think it's a shame they're doing this, gives atheists a black eye. Let the Catholics deal with their own issues, otherwise they'll play the martyr card on you and you end up just strengthening them.But it isn't "their" issues. They're forcibly raping boys en masse, covering it up, and all the while stealing my money to pay their salaries.

Frankly I'm less interested in having the pope arrested and more interested in exposing them for the criminals they are, so society can stop supporting them.

The better way to do this would be to really push the civil court issues in cases involving child molestation, both the criminal as well as the civil damages cases.Lawsuits will just mean they will steal more of our taxpayer dollars to pay out the settlements/judgments. Plus they never affect the ringleaders of the cult.

quote"Lawsuits will just mean they will steal more of our taxpayer dollars to pay out the settlements/judgments. Plus they never affect the ringleaders of the cult."

If you have a better idea, I would love to hear it. How exactly would they receive more taxpayer dollars to support their organization globally. Because globally the idea I proposed would directly lead to a sort of exodus into other denominations of Christianity, as well as other religeons altogether, from both the sheer embarrassment as well as the mistrust of such an organization. That would directly effect their revenue streams, not to mention many additional court costs as well as judgements from such actions would also cut into their revenue streams. This is not to even mention losses from removing tax exemptions in various countries.

If you have a better idea, I would love to hear it.Yes.

First, remove ALL subsidies or favored treatment they get from the government, so they have to pay their way just like any business. There is no practical or moral reason I should be forced, at gunpoint, to pay a tithe to the church so that they can murder more people or rape more boys.

Second, put their leaders in prison for the countless crimes of which they're guilty. Putting away individual child rapist pawns is meaningless if the leaders can simply recruit more without penalty. This is what Dawkins and Hitchens are getting at.That would directly effect their revenue streams, not to mention many additional court costs as well as judgements from such actions would also cut into their revenue streams.On the contrary, a lawsuit would be just the type of "cause" that would rally the fanatical base to hand them more money (about half of which is forcibly robbed from the taxpayers).

We'll also have to pay the administrative costs of the lawsuit.

The only real winners in the lawsuit will be the lawyers collecting the checks.

quote"First, remove ALL subsidies or favored treatment they get from the government, so they have to pay their way just like any business. There is no practical or moral reason I should be forced, at gunpoint, to pay a tithe to the church so that they can murder more people or rape more boys."

Well yes of course, that was what I was talking about, except you got to provide cases to have those removed. Both foreign and domestic cases, particularly incidents post the humanity laws from the United Nations around 1948 or so was it. If you can make cases to legislative branches of government to provide the avenue of approach.

quote"Second, put their leaders in prison for the countless crimes of which they're guilty. Putting away individual child rapist pawns is meaningless if the leaders can simply recruit more without penalty. This is what Dawkins and Hitchens are getting at."

It has been taught at many levels of philosophy from business, government, war, religeon, etc, humans are a disposable commodity. They will convene the cardinals of various diocese and elect more leaders. They would find it harder and harder to recruit more members, as well to educate them. Simply going after the figureheads does not get what makes the organization tick.

quote" On the contrary, a lawsuit would be just the type of "cause" that would rally the fanatical base to hand them more money (about half of which is forcibly robbed from the taxpayers)."

What is this a lawsuit. I am talking about many lawsuits at both the federal and international levels that will embattle the Vatican for 20 years or more, meanwhile generally embarrassing them.

Simply removing tax status and subs in the United States will do very little. They will still get their donations from tithes from their members in the United States that will be taxable. At the international level though......... as you can see I am clearly attacking their revenue stream at the international level, while also at the same time, not making atheists or agnostics look like complete pricks in some sort of bloodlust over spilled milk from years back.

Well yes of course, that was what I was talking about, except you got to provide cases to have those removed.Why? They shouldn't be there in the first place.

It shouldn't be the taxpayer's burden to prove that government spending is not proper.as you can see I am clearly attacking their revenue stream at the international level, while also at the same time, not making atheists or agnostics look like complete pricks in some sort of bloodlust over spilled milk from years back.If there were some secret non-Christian cult that raped children, and the leaders encouraged and tried to cover up the criminal behavior, no one would question making them answer for their crimes.

This is no different, except for the anti-atheist and pro-Christian bias.

quote"Why? They shouldn't be there in the first place.

It shouldn't be the taxpayer's burden to prove that government spending is not proper."

It is a taxpayer burden to show government spending is not up to snuff, or to point out many issues that have arisen, or will arise from various actions. Governments as well as citizens are not infalliable. Sometimes, they can make alot of sense. The womens sufferage movement as well as civil rights movements for various ethnic backgrounds are examples of this. As well as the current debates on homosexuality. You and I both know what will eventually happen, homosexuals will eventually receive the benefits they desire such as marriage benefits, so why all the dicking around for years, just get it done already. Those particular movements generally were not intiated by government actions, by various individuals who brought this to attention, save for cause and effect of other legislation as well as underlying social issues.

Simply arbitarily deciding to negatively impact various sources, you better have a cause beyond well because I feel like it. Some kind of logic and reason to do so to be broke down and debated on the merits of such action. On the subject of Christianity and the abuses they have done over the last 1900 years, I am well aware of it. I am also well aware of their various policies whether "good" or "ill". There are other ways to go about influencing policy changes.

For Dawkins and Hitchens to go after the pope as their prize..... well let me put it this way, when Saddam Hussein was captured, it was largely irrelevant. His government had been dismantled. He was finished. His trial and execution meant virtually little in the scheme of things. Same should Bin Laden be caught, tried, as well as executed. That is a prize, or trophy to stick on your mantle to make you feel oh so good about yourself. My question to Dawkins and Hitchens would be, what are you trying to prove? Would it not be better to use their influence to extend an open invite to conversation on policies past, present, and future to the church?

here you go..... lip service.

http://cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=20699

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/17/international/i132042D15.DTL&tsp=1Cardinal: late pope backed priest-shielding

(04-17) 13:20 PDT ROME, Italy (AP) --

Spanish media are quoting a retired Vatican cardinal as saying the late Pope John Paul II backed his letter congratulating a French bishop for risking jail for shielding a priest convicted of raping minors.

Web sites of La Verdad and other Spanish newspapers reported Saturday that Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, 80, told an audience at a Catholic university in Murcia, Spain, on Friday that he consulted with John Paul and showed him the letter. He claimed the pontiff authorized him to send the letter to bishops worldwide.

La Verdad said the audience at Universidad Catolica de Murcia applauded the cardinal's remarks.

The 2001 letter praised Bishop Pierre Pican, who received a three-month suspended prison sentence for concealing knowledge about the clergyman, the Rev. Rene Bissey, the media said. The priest himself was sentenced to 18 years for sexually abusing 11 minors.It's sad that there should be any controversy about trying these criminals. It's a pedophile cult engaged in a massive conspiracy spanning who knows how long.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/17/international/i132042D15.DTL&tsp=1It's sad that there should be any controversy about trying these criminals. It's a pedophile cult engaged in a massive conspiracy spanning who knows how long.

Two points, and then I am going to bow out of this debate and not touch it again ...

First, the Catholic Church is many things but a pedophile cult it is not. They even have explicit rules for their members to do these kind of despicable things. The church is simply doing what any large organisation is doing when its members are accused of wrongdoing: closing the ranks and cover up (the (evidence of) the crime. That does not make it less wrong, but simply not something unique to the Catholic Church. Additionally, there is no credible evidence of any link between celibacy and abuse. There is on the other hand plenty of evidence that putting somebody in physical and moral authority over vulnerable and easily isolated people greatly increases the risk of abuse. Some of the worst cases happened in instututes for deaf and instutus for (mentally) disabled children. Historically women were in the same position, and in large parts of the world still are (often to the point of being made responsible for the abuse they suffered should they dare speak out).
Again, this does not make what happened right, but should warn us not to rail at the wrong target. The issue is not that these men were priests, but that they were in absolute control of children without being supervised themselves. If we allow our outrage to focus exclusively on the priests and the church then we ignore the tens of thousands of other potential victims today. Youth prisons, boot camps, institutions for any form of disability, all those groups and subcultures where conforming to social expectations is more important than justice...

Second, there seems to be some confusion regarding the possibility of prosecuting the Catholic Church and the Pope in particular. It may not be commonly known but the Pope is technically the Head of State of the Vatican which -is- an independent nation. Unless the USA wishes to give up its resistence and accepts the authority of the International Criminal Court in The Hague they can do exactly nothing. The government of the UK is not going to touch the case brought by Dawkins and Hitchens for the same reason. Regarding prosecuting the Church as a whole that is difficult to do, as it requires proof that the organisation set up child abuse. I do not think anybody really believes they do. At worst the church can be accused of attempting to cover up evidence of a crime, which amounts to obstruction of justice, but -only- if a criminal investigation was already underway. Otherwise the church's lawyers will simply argue that the church was settling cases out of court. Of course individual priests can, and should, be prosecuted for their crimes.
Fining the organisation as a whole again requires proof that the organisation as a whole was set up to commit those crimes, or at least a recognisable chain of command within it. An organisation can not and should not be automatically responsible for the conduct of one of its members, especially when it falls outside of the scope and mandate of their membership. Widening the scope of responsibility just because a specific case is so repulsive is a very dangerous thing to do, and something that a supreme court will cancel immediately because of its far reaching and unintended consequences (e.g. if somebody kicked my pet I could then accuse the person doing the kicking, his employer, the local, state and even the federal government (just to name a few organisations that have a degree of hierarchy, however tenuous, over the person actually kicking my pet) of animal abuse and demand millions in punitive damages. To be settled out of court for thousands unless out of court settlements are also made illegal as a result of overreacting (legally speaking) to this case.)
I am not saying the priests who did these things were not criminals, nor that the church and its officials that silently condoned the abuse and actively covered it up were not in the wrong, morally speaking. It is just that things are not quite as simple as 'We should sue the bastards for a couple of billion dollars for each case. That will teach them.'


Eri

Additionally, there is no credible evidence of any link between celibacy and abuse.You have GOT to be kidding me.

If you have a club that says you can't have sex with women, you are naturally going to attract closet gays and pedophiles, which is what just about every priest is (one, the other, or both).

If you think the sexual habits of priests today are similar to those of the general male population, you are seriously in denial.Fining the organisation as a whole again requires proof that the organisation as a whole was set up to commit those crimes, or at least a recognisable chain of command within it. An organisation can not and should not be automatically responsible for the conduct of one of its members, especially when it falls outside of the scope and mandate of their membership.Granted I don't know English law, but our laws are based on English law, so they're undoubtedly similar.

Here, if you have an organization that commits serious crimes and conspires to cover them up, they're not just going to get fined. They're going to get thrown in prison for a very long time, for crimes such as accessory after the fact and racketeering.

You do not need some official edict within the organization to commit crimes in order to put all of the leaders in prison. Widening the scope of responsibility just because a specific case is so repulsive is a very dangerous thing to do, and something that a supreme court will cancel immediately because of its far reaching and unintended consequences (e.g. if somebody kicked my pet I could then accuse the person doing the kicking, his employer, the local, state and even the federal government (just to name a few organisations that have a degree of hierarchy, however tenuous, over the person actually kicking my pet) of animal abuse and demand millions in punitive damages.That depends. Does the employer selectively hire animal abusers? Did the guy kick your pet a dozen times before? Did the employer know about each incident? Did the employer lie about it and try to cover it up?

If the answer is yes to those questions, the employer can properly be charged with a crime.

Just as the pope can, and should, be charged for his countless crimes.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

If you have a club that says you can't have sex with women, you are naturally going to attract closet gays and pedophiles, which is what just about every priest is (one, the other, or both).


Yes, I really am not kidding you and you are both insulting and needlessly generalising to boot. Of the hundres of thousands of Catholic priests in the world only a tiny fraction misbehaves.
Please do not fall victim to the issues of selective reporting and selective reading. This is a serious issue and the Catholic Church (as well as every other organisation) needs to understand that it is no longer acceptable to try to cover up the crimes commited by its members.
(and for your information celibacy means 'no sex' at all. It does not draw gays or pedophiles anymore than the army does that has a similar no sex rule for its soldiers (at least not with each other and not when on duty)).


If you think the sexual habits of priests today are similar to those of the general male population, you are seriously in denial.


I think that they are not significantly different no. It has nothing to do with denial and everything with reading past the hype and histeria. Child abuse happens in every strata of society and is not limited to Catholic priests. Things like these child abuse scandals happened, and happen, everywhere. As I said, one of the worst cases of child abuse in recent years in the Netherlands was in an institute for deaf children, and another one in an institute for mentally disabled. In neither case a priest, Catholic or otherwise, could be found anywhere near the scandal. For two thousand years the Catholic Church has been in a situation where misbehaviour of the powerful was looked away from to not upset the status quo (or because those had absolute power over their subjects and could have them executed on a whim). The church and its leaders have failed to realise that the democratisation of our society (meaning that power is no longer granted automatically amongst other things) also applies to them and that 'keeping things quiet and under wraps' is no longer socially acceptable. The behaviour itself was never acceptable but for most of our history people were not inclined to protest.
And we are seeing all these scandals with the Catholic Church because every journalist and his dog is looking for those. And in the process of looking for more things the church has done wrong we entirely lose sight of the fact that it is, in this respect, like any other organisation that does not want its reputation smeared and tries/tried to keep negative stories out of the news. These are now all aired at the same time, many dating back 30, 40 or even 50 years back.
I am not saying these were not crimes nor that the church is blameless in this, but you are seeing an exagerated picture which is further distorted by your hatred for all things religious.


Granted I don't know English law, but our laws are based on English law, so they're undoubtedly similar.

Here, if you have an organization that commits serious crimes and conspires to cover them up, they're not just going to get fined. They're going to get thrown in prison for a very long time, for crimes such as accessory after the fact and racketeering.


Well, yes, but then you still have to prove that the organisation was involved in the crime (as opposed to its members). Trying to settle conflicts out of court is not in and of itself a crime. I hope.

And I am curious how you think to throw an organistation in jail? Going to lock up all buildings? Build a prison big enough to hold a couple of hundred million Catholics? Arrest and prosecute what is essentially a foreign government?


You do not need some official edict within the organization to commit crimes in order to put all of the leaders in prison.That depends. Does the employer selectively hire animal abusers? Did the guy kick your pet a dozen times before? Did the employer know about each incident? Did the employer lie about it and try to cover it up?

If the answer is yes to those questions, the employer can properly be charged with a crime.

Just as the pope can, and should, be charged for his countless crimes.

We were making so much progress, and then you lose it on the last sentence :(


Eri

(and for your information celibacy means 'no sex' at all. It does not draw gays or pedophiles anymore than the army does that has a similar no sex rule for its soldiers (at least not with each other and not when on duty)).Then enlighten me, because I thought the pope and his underlings weren't allowed to have sex of any kind.

According to their club rules, whom may they officially screw (other than the taxpayers, of course)?

And the comparison to soldiers is silly. That's a limitation on when they can have sex, not whether they can have sex.hings like these child abuse scandals happened, and happen, everywhere. As I said, one of the worst cases of child abuse in recent years in the Netherlands was in an institute for deaf children, and another one in an institute for mentally disabled.Exactly. Because abusers are naturally drawn to work in a place where they have plenty of helpless victims, like disabled children.

Just as closet gay/pedophile men are drawn to work as priests, where they have other closet gay men to screw and plenty of innocent boys to rape.

Your notion, that child rape happens with equal frequency everywhere, is simply absurd.

The abusers congregate in places where the pickings are easy and they know they can get away with it.Well, yes, but then you still have to prove that the organisation was involved in the crime (as opposed to its members).Covering up a crime is involvement. Conspiring to cover up a series of crimes is even greater involvement.

These are serious felonies in the United States. Accessory after the fact under federal law (like covering up a crime) carries half the penalty of the crime that was covered up. Racketeering carries a 20 year sentence on top of that. And we're talking each instance, each time a boy is raped (even if it's the same boy multiple times). I'm sure they're serious crimes in England, too.

You seem to think the pope himself has to be raping boys to be guilty of a crime. That's not true.And I am curious how you think to throw an organistation in jail?Put the ringleaders (pope and his main underlings) in prison.

ake them pay restitution out of their own assets, which they stole from us.

Don't give them one more cent of public money.

Allow them to continue operating only under strict guidelines that prevent the possibility of further abuse (like a systematic means of reporting abuse to an independent agency which has the power to investigate).

This isn't rocket science; corporations are criminally prosecuted all the time and the real people behind them have to pay for it.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Exactly.

You specifically pick members of a group of adult men who are not attracted to adult women. Who don't want to **** women.

And are surprised when those from that group want to **** little boys.

Gimme a break.

/shrug

I am not glad to see that the old 'all gays are child molesters' mindset is still very much alive and stinking...


Also, nothing seems to penetrate the bubble of righteous indignation of some of you, does it?


Eri

I am not glad to see that the old 'all gays are child molesters' mindset is still very much alive and stinking...Where do you get that?

I said priests are largely closet gays, pedophiles, or both. Not that gay men are pedophiles, or are more likely to be pedophiles.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_re_us/us_church_abuse_vatican_lawsuitSuit: Vatican No. 2 got letter from abuse victim

ILWAUKEE – A neatly typed letter dated March 5, 1995, is addressed to the No. 2 man at the Vatican and recounts the story of a priest who preyed on deaf boys trapped in dormitories with no chance of escape.

The letter to Cardinal Angelo Sodano from one of the Rev. Lawrence Murphy's alleged victims is more evidence for those trying to learn what Vatican officials knew about abuse claims at St. John's School for the Deaf outside Milwaukee and when.

The document was revealed Thursday in yet another lawsuit aimed at the highest reaches of the Roman Catholic Church. It's also significant because it involves Sodano, a strong defender of Pope Benedict XVI's handling of the global clergy sexual abuse crisis and a man whose own record on a separate high-profile case has come under scrutiny.

urphy, who died in 1998, is accused of sexually abusing some 200 boys at the deaf school from 1950 to 1974. He was put on a leave of absence when the allegations were revealed in the early 1970s. The lawsuit claims Murphy was still allowed to serve in ministry and work with children in another Wisconsin diocese into the early 1990s.One of their pedophiles raped 200 boys and all they did is move him to fresh hunting grounds.

If they weren't Christians with "god immunity," they'd rot in prison for the rest of their life the moment they stepped into the United States (and many other countries with similar laws).

I am not glad to see that the old 'all gays are child molesters' mindset is still very much alive and stinking...


Also, nothing seems to penetrate the bubble of righteous indignation of some of you, does it?


Eri
It is right to be indignant about a corporation which is allowed to continue to exist with this going on.

If managers at WalMart took little kids in back, and molested them in the same numbers as the Catholic church.
Imagine if managers at WalMart did do this, and the only punishment meted out was moving them to a new store.

You would shut it down. And have all of the executives in shackles for conspiracy. Especially when the CEO(read pope) knew about it, condoned it, covered for it, and probably did it.



This corporation has really creepy hiring practices, for a job description which is equally creepy. No wonder they get creeps to fill the positions.

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

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/04/23/national/a163000D16.DTL&tsp=1Boy Scouts ordered to pay $18.5M in sex abuse case

(04-24) 01:31 PDT (AP) --

PORTLAND, Ore. — An Oregon jury's decision to award a man $18.5 million in punitive damages in his case against the Boy Scouts of America will likely be the first of many financial hits the Scouts will take as it prepares to defend itself against a series of sex abuse lawsuits.

The jury on Friday ordered the Scouts to make the payment to Kerry Lewis, the victim of sex abuse by a former assistant Scoutmaster in Portland in the early 1980s.

The case was the first of six filed against the Boy Scouts in the same court in Oregon, with at least one other separate case pending. If mediation fails to settle the other cases, they also could go to trial.

The jury decided on April 13 that the Boy Scouts were negligent for allowing former assistant Scoutmaster Timur Dykes to associate with Scouts, including Lewis, after Dykes admitted to a Scouts official in 1983 that he had molested 17 boys.

For more than a month, dueling experts and a parade of witnesses from both sides wove together a picture of an organization that compiled secret files on child molesters for nearly the entire century it has been in existence.

The "ineligible volunteer" files, nicknamed the "perversion files," are kept under lock and key at Scouts headquarters, now in Irving, Texas, a practice that began back in the 1920s.

The Scouts said the files were put to good use quietly keeping molesters out of the organization for all those years. But Lewis' attorneys argued that the Scout should have brought the files out into the open decades ago.

In a 1987 sex abuse case, an Oregon jury awarded more than $4 million to the victim, including $2 million in punitive damages against the Scouts that were thrown out when the case was appealed. A jury in San Bernardino, Calif., awarded $3.75 million to three sex abuse victims in 1991.

Boyle said from 1984 through 1992, the Scouts were sued at least 60 times for alleged sex abuse with settlements and judgments totaling more than $16 million.The guy won $18.5 million and he had a weaker case than the priest-rape victims.

If Christians weren't above the law in this country, the church would be bankrupt by now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100530/ap_on_re/rel_pope_church_abuseFuture pope refused defrocking of convicted priest

The future Pope Benedict XVI refused to defrock an American priest who confessed to molesting numerous children and even served prison time for it, simply because the cleric wouldn't agree to the discipline. The case provides the latest evidence of how changes in church law under Pope John Paul II frustrated and hamstrung U.S. bishops struggling with an abuse crisis that would eventually explode.

Documents obtained by The Associated Press from court filings in the case of the late Rev. Alvin Campbell of Illinois show Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, following church law at the time, turned down a bishop's plea to remove the priest for no other reason than the abuser's refusal to go along with it.

Campbell's misdeeds date back at least 15 years before his defrocking.

As an Army chaplain, he was reprimanded and ultimately left the service after abusing at least one boy, according to military and church correspondence. An Army letter in his file said he had exploited his rank and position as a chaplain "by engaging in indecent homosexual acts" with a child under 16 who had been under his supervision.

Even so, Bishop Joseph McNicholas, then at the helm of the Springfield diocese, wrote to him, "Be assured that we will welcome you with open arms here at home." While church officials overseeing clergy in the military were alerted of Campbell's actions, and reference is made to the molestations in Ryan's letter to Ratzinger, it's not clear whether McNicholas knew.

Campbell became a pastor upon his return to the diocese. In at least three instances after returning to diocesan work, he was forced to depart jobs as parish pastor or administrator "for reasons of health," a euphemism for sexual abuse used within the church that Ryan himself put in quotes.

After workers at a rape crisis center alerted authorities that they were treating one of Campbell's victims, police found he had been plying boys with video games, bicycles, watches and other gifts to get them to the waterbed in his second-floor rectory bedroom. Ryan sent Campbell to a New Mexico treatment facility after the arrest.

Campbell was sentenced to 14 years in prison in 1985, after admitting to molesting seven boys during his time as pastor of St. Maurice Parish in Morrisonville, Ill. He was released in 1992 after serving about seven years for sexual assault and sexual abuse.

Ryan apparently waited four years after Campbell went to prison, according to church files, before asking for the priest's defrocking. It's unclear what accounted for the delay.

In his 1989 letter to Ratzinger, Ryan outlined Campbell's many offenses against children and asked for his laicization. He pointed out the local notoriety of the priest's case and said his crimes and those of another abusive priest had already cost the diocese $1.5 million in damages and legal fees.

Kathie Sass, a spokeswoman for the Diocese of Springfield, said no one familiar with the intricacies of the Campbell case was still working in the tribunal and able to talk.

Sass said Ryan, who lives in a nursing home outside the diocese, was unable to respond to questions. He retired in 1999 under a cloud of accusations of sexual relationships with male prostitutes and at least one priest; his successor found that he had engaged in "improper sexual conduct," allegations Ryan denied.They hired a known child molester, welcoming him with open arms.

They moved him around three times as he was raping boys.

And when he was convicted, and it got so bad that even one of his child rapist colleagues wanted to get rid of him, the would-be pope refused to do so.

If this isn't criminal, I don't know what is.

So, what happened with Dawkins Hitchens and the Pope visit?

nm

http://www.thepapalvisit.org.uk/

Visit is in September.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100625/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_belgiumVatican astonished at Belgian police raid

VATICAN CITY – The Vatican said Friday it was astonished and outraged that Belgian police investigating priestly sex abuse had conducted raids that also targeted the graves of two archbishops.

The Vatican summoned the Belgian ambassador to the Holy See to convey its anger over the raids, which also included the home and offices of the retired archbishop of Belgium. The ambassador was called in for a meeting with the Vatican's foreign minister.

In a statement, the Vatican said any sinful and criminal abuse of minors from members of the church must be condemned and repeated that there is a need for justice and amends.

But it added, "The Secretariat of State also expresses astonishment at the way in which the search took place." It expressed "outrage over the violation of the tombs."

On Thursday, police raided the home and former office of former Archbishop Godfried Danneels, taking documents and Danneels' personal computer. Police and prosecutors did not say if Danneels was suspected of abuse himself or simply had records pertaining to allegations against another person. He was not questioned.

Investigators also opened the graves of archbishops in the St. Rombouts Cathedral in Mechlin, north of Brussels, looking for possibly incriminating documents, said Jean-Marc Meilleur, spokesman for the Brussels public prosecutor.

Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, Belgium's current archbishop, condemned the search of the cathedral, saying that is stuff for "crime novels and 'The Da Vinci Code.'"

Separately, police seized the records of an independent panel investigating sexual abuse by priests, some 500 cases in all. The victims are mostly men now in their 60s and 70s.

This also drew the condemnation of the Vatican, which said it regretted the violation of the confidentiality due the victims of child abuse.

The Brussels prosecutor's office said the raids followed recent statements to police related to the sexual abuse of children within the church.

It was the latest development in a sex abuse scandal that has shaken the Roman Catholic Church in Europe and beyond for months.

Reports of rape and other sexual abuse of minors in seminars, schools and other church-run institutions have piled up. Victims have come forward accusing priests of abuse and bishops of covering up crimes in order to safeguard the church's name.So the pope is amazed that at least one country does not consider his child rapist cult above the law.

I guess he has been so used to playing the "god" card to get away with just about anything, that he would be amazed.

If only our leaders followed Beglium's example.