Christopher Hitchens: The great Catholic cover-up
Posted: March 18, 2010, 1:00 PM by Chris Selley

On March 10, the chief exorcist of the Vatican, the Rev. Gabriele Amorth (who has held this demanding post for 25 years), was quoted as saying that “the Devil is at work inside the Vatican,” and that “when one speaks of ‘the smoke of Satan’ in the holy rooms, it is all true — including these latest stories of violence and pedophilia.” This can perhaps be taken as confirmation that something horrible has indeed been going on in the holy precincts, though most inquiries show it to have a perfectly good material explanation.

Concerning the most recent revelations about the steady complicity of the Vatican in the ongoing — indeed endless — scandal of child rape, a few days later a spokesman for the Holy See made a concession in the guise of a denial. It was clear, said the Rev. Federico Lombardi, that an attempt was being made “to find elements to involve the Holy Father personally in issues of abuse.” He stupidly went on to say that “those efforts have failed.”

He was wrong twice. In the first place, nobody has had to strive to find such evidence: It has surfaced, as it was bound to do. In the second place, this extension of the awful scandal to the topmost level of the Roman Catholic Church is a process that has only just begun. Yet it became in a sense inevitable when the College of Cardinals elected, as the vicar of Christ on Earth, the man chiefly responsible for the original cover-up. (One of the sanctified voters in that “election” was Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, a man who had already found the jurisdiction of Massachusetts a bit too warm for his liking.)

There are two separate but related matters here: First, the individual responsibility of the Pope in one instance of this moral nightmare and, second, his more general and institutional responsibility for the wider lawbreaking and for the shame and disgrace that goes with it. The first story is easily told, and it is not denied by anybody. In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked and forced to suck the penis of his confessor. (Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing “abuse”?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for “therapy” by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger’s deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to “pastoral” work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault.

It is, of course, claimed, and it will no doubt later be partially un-claimed, that Ratzinger himself knew nothing of this second outrage. I quote, here, from the Rev. Thomas Doyle, a former employee of the Vatican Embassy in Washington and an early critic of the Catholic Church’s sloth in responding to child-rape allegations. “Nonsense,” he says. “Pope Benedict is a micromanager. He’s the old style. Anything like that would necessarily have been brought to his attention. Tell the vicar general to find a better line. What he’s trying to do, obviously, is protect the Pope.”

This is common or garden stuff, very familiar to American and Australian and Irish Catholics whose children’s rape and torture, and the cover-up of same by the tactic of moving rapists and torturers from parish to parish, has been painstakingly and comprehensively exposed. It’s on a level with the recent belated admission by the Pope’s brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, that while he knew nothing about sexual assault at the choir school he ran between 1964 and 1994, now that he remembers it, he is sorry for his practice of slapping the boys around.

Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church’s own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated “in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication.” Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offence could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)

Not content with shielding its own priests from the law, Ratzinger’s office even wrote its own private statute of limitations. The church’s jurisdiction, claimed Ratzinger, “begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age” and then lasts for 10 more years. Daniel Shea, the attorney for two victims who sued Ratzinger and a church in Texas, correctly describes that latter stipulation as an obstruction of justice. “You can’t investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10, the priest will get away with it.”

The next item on this grisly docket will be the revival of the long-standing allegations against the Rev. Marcial Maciel, founder of the ultra-reactionary Legion of Christ, in which sexual assault seems to have been almost part of the liturgy. Senior ex-members of this secretive order found their complaints ignored and overridden by Ratzinger during the 1990s, if only because Father Maciel had been praised by the then-Pope John Paul II II as an “efficacious guide to youth.” And now behold the harvest of this long campaign of obfuscation. The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity, whose ineptitude in that job now shows him to us as a man personally and professionally responsible for enabling a filthy wave of crime. Ratzinger himself may be banal, but his whole career has the stench of evil — a clinging and systematic evil that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel. What is needed is not medieval incantation but the application of justice — and speedily at that.

Slate.com
AddThis Social Bookmark Button Comments (81) Send to a friend Permalink

81 Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment
by Roland Young
Mar 18 2010
9:02 AM

Allow priests to marry.

by The Jones
Mar 18 2010
9:16 AM

Rotten to the core... if the vatican has any chance of long-term survival, surely it needs a complete overhaul of its leadership by its followers. Is insurrection ok by Jesus?

by ztisdale
Mar 18 2010
9:19 AM

Tax the church.

by Kubi920
Mar 18 2010
9:20 AM

I refuse to believe Ratzinger's guilt (based on the facts available at the present) for two reasons.

Firstly, the time at which the abusive priest was transferred to a Munich parish isn't specified, which is problematic. I've heard it was 1982, which makes it more confusing. Ratzinger was transferred to a new job in the Vatican in November 1981, and remained the nominal Archbishop of Munich and Freising until February 1982. Then, the archbishop's office was vacant until October 1982 when Friedrich Wetter became archbishop. So I don't see how the facts prove anything.

Secondly, Mr. Hitchens's claim that the 2001 letter (which he doesn't actually name - it's called "De delictis gravioribus") declared that "any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden" is very misleading. The letter only pertains to priests who use the confessional for sollicitation. Further, the secrecy pertains to the internal church investigation, so as to protect the privacy of both victim and accused. It absolutely does not prohibit victims, priests, bishops, or others from reporting things to the police. If victims have been prohibited in some cases from doing so, it is because of a crime on the part of the local diocese, not on the part of Cardinal Ratzinger in the Vatican.

by edd333ed
Mar 18 2010
9:31 AM

Hitchens 1: DeSouza 0.

by Kaapenaar
Mar 18 2010
9:33 AM

Two business acquaintances of mine are a Catholic priest and an orthodox rabbi. The rabbi is a jolly avuncular fellow with 7 kids, who extols the virtues of his wonderful wife's cooking. Never hesitates to show off endless kids' pix on his Blackberry. But the priest is a wizened, introverted, penny-pinching and miserable "soul", who (in 3 years) I've never once seen smile. I can imagine what the priest views online, once cloistered in his monk's cell for the night. Now tell me, what is wrong with this picture?

by John_7777
Mar 18 2010
9:39 AM

I am in the midst of reading "Jesus of Nazareth" by Benedict and there is nothing 'evil' about Joseph Ratinzer. Hitchens is full of hate and he won't bait me into foregoing my faith. It is because the Church has survived the Crusades, Inquisition, Napoleon, and Hitler that I know we'll survive this infection from pedofiles. Yes, Catholics are disgusted by this behaviour and shocked that pedofiles have infiltrated our Church and desecrated the innocent but to abandon our Faith, in dark times, would be to allow evil and atheists like Hitchens to take away our hope.

by Willy18
Mar 18 2010
9:43 AM

This group is filled with pedophiles and needs to be cleaned out. They seem to recruit misfits or train them and then send them out on unsuspecting children. There is one person responsible and that is one referred to as the Holy Father or Holy See. Quite fitting names for a monster. The only way to solve the problem is to have the tax status removed or the doors of these dens closed and sold off.

by Observer45
Mar 18 2010
9:46 AM

Kubi920 writes about the 2001 letter that:

"Mr. Hitchen's claim ... is very misleading."

Indeed. Hitchens' assertion that:

"But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture."

is so misleading as to amount to outright fraud.

Why are deranged anti-Catholics like Hitchens so willing to engage in outright lies and slander?

And why is the Post so gullible as to print such sensationalist rubbish?

by Manganic
Mar 18 2010
10:00 AM

Allowing Catholic priests to marry, as the first comment suggests, won't solve the problem. This issue isn't about marrying priests, or not, it's about power and control.

It is not a religious tenet of the Catholic church for priests to remain celibate, it's a discipline - the principle being dedication and devotion to the church over worldly things like marriage.

Personally, I do not agree with that philosophy, and hence, I'm not a Catholic priest.

However, the Catholic church does need to modernize their recruiting process for priests - and also implement tougher screening measures to reduce the risk of such abuses continuing. If the Catholic church fails in this area, it will continue to lose credibility and respect, and will eventually, tragically, die off.

by Kubi920
Mar 18 2010
10:02 AM

Kaapenaar: So, the fact that one priest is miserable means that he's a pedophile? And furthermore, that he's an accurate representation of the Church's 400 000 priests? I don't see the logic. I know about ten priests, and they are all very happy with their lives. I see them all smile and laugh frequently.

I'd also like to point out that I am familiar with the Canadian Church's policies in the acceptance of seminarians and formation of priests. Men undergo a psychological screening before even entering the seminary, and then go through a rigorous five-year period that includes frequent spiritual guidance based on the four pillars of human, spiritual, intellectual, and pastoral formation. Pope John Paul II greatly expanded the human formation aspect in the early 1990s, and I strongly believe this will go a long way to ensuring that only holy men become priests in the future. In fact, we're already seeing this, as abuse cases have decreased in recent years. The greatest cause of the 20th-century abuse scandal is bishops' laziness and irresponsibility that allowed people like Brendan Smyth to become priests. With the new formation program, I highly doubt Smyth could become a priest now.

by Barneyrubble
Mar 18 2010
10:09 AM

So many examples and so many similarities. I am talking about institutions policing or regulating themselves. I see no difference in the former Bush Administration, the U.S. financial industry and the Papacy. These are ( or were ) all institutions of power that think they can operate independently of the law. Isn't that the basic problem here?

by Anonymous66
Mar 18 2010
10:13 AM

by John_7777 - "to abandon our Faith, in dark times, would be to allow evil and atheists like Hitchens to take away our hope."

The Church bureaucracy, in its efforts to control PR damage, has been outed for a habit - there's no way it can be dismissed as a few isolated cases anymore - of covering up for pedophiles by shuffling them around rather than bringing in the police, and it's the ATHEISTS who are evil????

by Dianne Wood
Mar 18 2010
10:14 AM

Right on John_7777. I have read many of the Pope's works and they bring me to my knees with his depth and understanding of God. I disagree edd333ed, it is Hitchen's 1, DeSouza 1.

Father DeSouza balances Hitchen's claims. Hitchen's stories are out there so thank goodness the Post balanced them with a good response.

There is no cover-up here. The Pope is bringing this out in the light. I look forward to reading his response.

by Rhino Party Whip
Mar 18 2010
10:16 AM

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why my son is not baptised. My daughter is not baptised because I'm an old school feminist at heart.

Another is that my Alzheimer's-suffering grandmother had her chequebook taken away, in Ontario, in 2009, to protect her finances from the church.

Thieves, buggers, misogynists and frauds.

Time to strip the tax-free status of this bum-dag club and bring in the klieg lights.

by JETSOLVER
Mar 18 2010
10:17 AM

Destroyed from within...

How very, very fitting...

by Kaapenaar
Mar 18 2010
10:24 AM

@ Kubi_920: My sincere apologies to you; I was not categorizing priests.Wrong of me to insinuate negative aspersions, re his after-duty activity. The point I was trying to make, is that Jewish clergy seem happier "family-esque" people, than Catholic clergy with their enforced solitude & celibacy. Unnatural way of life, but I'm glad to hear that happy, well-adjusted "smiling" Catholic priests exist. Since as a Jew, I tend to meet very few of them.

by Rhino Party Whip
Mar 18 2010
10:30 AM

Let me re-iterate: My family stripped my grandmother of her legal and personal decision-making power, not to protect her from Bernie Madoff or some tele-vangelist, but the Catholic church. How sad is that?

by Rhino Party Whip
Mar 18 2010
10:38 AM

The Jones: No, I think this must be what Jesus had in mind when he said to just turn the other cheek. Take it like a champ, for God!

by jimshort19
Mar 18 2010
10:49 AM

Wow this Hitchens is hot, as are the comments. Hitchens purports to have found elements to involve the Holy Father personally in issues of abuse, a man esponsible for cover-up, the smoke of Satan himself, the Pope. Now Thomas Doyle is damning, but no charges have been laid. Hitchens wails for justice but makes no charge or call for criminal charges. The smoke of Satan indeed, Hitchens is blowing smoke. But when anybody tells me that the Pope is a perp, I just wanna say, "Well, yes but duh? Where you been since the '70's? It is indeed an ongoing moral scandal of the highest proportions, and old news. The church has taken a hit, but it is not reeling.

by Dianne Wood
Mar 18 2010
11:04 AM

I am glad to say I have met many well adjusted Catholic priests who are celibate. I have also met some married Catholic priests who are well adjusted and some not well adjusted.

Celibacy is not the problem. I know men who are married and who are pedophiles.

The Catholic Church is full of sinners as the world is full of sinners. I am a sinner. I am willing to bet you are a sinner.

On top of being sinners all pedophiles are very sick. There was a time when it was thought that pedophiles could be cured. I met one who was a priest and everyone thinks he is cured.

Can they be cured? I do not know the answer to that. I think in the past the Church allowed back those they thought were cured. They don't any longer. There are many married clergy in many denominations who have this sickness. There must even be some Rabbis who have this sickness.

We all learn from our mistakes. The sexual revolution of the 1960's threw the world and the Church for a loop. But the Catholic Church is learning from its mistakes. Pedophiles need not apply any longer for the priesthood. Some may still slip in though. Some may develop the illness after they enter. But they are trying their best.

But is the rest of the world learning from their mistakes? As long as we continue to have such easy access to pornography of any type, we will not get a handle on any of the sexual problems we have amongst us. And as long as we continue to strike down our laws in Canada that use to protect our society from sexual deviants, we will never get control of this problem. Sodomy, bestiality, polygamy, abortion, divorce... were/are there for a reason. Our forefathers were trying to get rid of the mistakes their past societies had learned from.

by not_psyco_bob
Mar 18 2010
11:06 AM

I can't take life advice from men who don't have sex. It's just obvious that if they aren't finger-humping themselves into bloody stumps, then they must be getting their rocks of someplace else. Since these priests need to publicly maintain the farce of "celibacy", the places they bust their nuts are going to have to involve the weak, the vulnerable, and the socially marginalized. In other words, the exact same people that they claim to be here to help. Until they stop trying to violate natural law, perversion is inevitable.

by straightenupandflyright
Mar 18 2010
11:13 AM

The Catholic church is filled with rampant institutional buggery.

by Dianne Wood
Mar 18 2010
11:19 AM

I think if this is really a site for "Holy Posts" that Father DeSouza's column that ran beside Hitchen's today should also be here, or at least a link to it from this article.

www.nationalpost.com/.../story.html

by Shamwow Vince
Mar 18 2010
11:22 AM

And the Roman Catholics in the crowd rise as one to defend the indefensible.

Shame on you. Shame on your church.

by Beach38
Mar 18 2010
11:24 AM

This is the kind of sleazy, half-true innuendo and snearmongering which the old loyal order of orangement used to excel at. Congrats to Hitchens for taking anti-catholic bigotry lessons from the best.

by Dianne Wood
Mar 18 2010
11:27 AM

Sorry, I thought I was in Holy Posts but realize now that you are running this on 2 blogs, Full Comment and Holy Posts. Interesting.

by Beach38
Mar 18 2010
11:29 AM

There was a sixty minutes show a couple of years back which strongly suggested that in its desperation to fill the ranks of its diminishing priesthood the Church had been less than strenuous in weeding out undesirables. In particular, it said that a number of gay men in denial, men who hated the fact they were gay, who were disgusted by it, sought lives as priests as a way of dealing with their issue. According to that episode a very large percentage of the young men going into the priesthood were anxiety riven gays in denial. I think allowing priests to marry would go a long way to deal with any number of problems the Church finds itself in with regard to priests.

by Dianne Wood
Mar 18 2010
11:38 AM

John Allen does an wonderful job here explaining what Hitchen's does not understand:

ncronline.org/.../will-ratzingers-past-trump-benedicts-present

by O'Kane
Mar 18 2010
11:41 AM

I find it absolutly appaling that there is still so many Catholics with thier heads in the sand. You don't belive the Rat/Benedict (fitting names, non?)knew about it? Give your head a big long shake. How is the church learning from it mistakes, Diane? How long is the learning process? This sexual abuse of children has been going on for decades and it has been covered up for just as long. That is not learning from mistakes. That is stating that the "mistakes" are okay. For the Rat to be in charge of investigating the sexual abuse of children and then be elected pope is indicative of how corrupt the church really is. The fact that he is speaking out about it now makes him a fraud. HE KNEW IT WAS GOING ON FOR YEARS AND NEVER DID A THING. This makes the church a criminal organization in my mind and the upper echelon should be purged. "In the name of God"? Please, that is disgusting.

by jimshort19
Mar 18 2010
11:42 AM

Dianne Wood knows pedophiles, or at least one. She suggests that some Rabbis may be pedophiles. She suggests that the rest of the world learn from the Vatican and get a handle on sodomy, divorce beastiality and abortion, and other types of bad sex. But the pervert that she knows is a priest. Go figure.

by Fr. Tim
Mar 18 2010
11:59 AM

straightenupandflyright: Your claim that the RC Church is "filled with rampant buggery" is both wrong and hateful. Sorry to disappoint you.

Fr. Tim

by supernova92
Mar 18 2010
12:09 PM

good article. Some of the responses have been over the top. How does allowing the priests to marry solve the problem? Pedophilia exists in the heterosexual world and, more over, is more prevelent statistically?

by Shamwow Vince
Mar 18 2010
12:27 PM

Gotta love the RC church. Homosexuality is a sin but buggering an alterboy is just fine.

by PeaceRiver
Mar 18 2010
12:27 PM

It is surely common knowledge the altar boys were seduced and groomed for the priesthood, how else would that clergy get new recruits? Very few humans opt out of sex completely, it is not natural. The scam run by the militant, imperialist RC church that up until now protected perpetrators from secular prosecution is now up.

A good editorial in the UK, Observer on Sunday summed up the situational nicely:

"The Catholic church should free its priests from celibacy"

"It is now an open secret that many priests have live-in lovers, with parishioners sympathetically keeping quiet. Priests involved in homosexual relations have been more covert, but anonymous polls have repeatedly showed that homosexuality is common among the clergy."

www.guardian.co.uk/.../editorial-catholic-priests-celibacy

Thanks to you again Christopher Hitchens for writing so clearly. BTW did you check out Andrew Brown's Guardian, Cif today sort of taking a stand that Cardinal Law be sent packing back to the USA to face indictments?

www.guardian.co.uk/.../pope-benedict-cardinal-bernard-law

by Manganic
Mar 18 2010
12:31 PM

It is amazing to me how quickly a discussion about abuse within the RC church can degrade into a session of hatred and bigotry towards the church itself.

The discussion should be around how to deal with the abusers who have been caught, how to catch people who are still abusing, and how to prevent it from happening again.

Instead, we have a bunch of people showing their level of intelligence by decrying the church itself, where it is not the Church, nor the base value system it espouses that is the problem.

In truth, I suspect there are a lot of people - some of whom we see posting comments here - who are rubbing their hands together with glee and salivating over the chance to "get" a 2000-year-old institution.

By saying "get" I mean "damage, destroy, or otherwise degrade."

To these people, it isn't about child abuse; it's about destroying a religion, and that is shameful.

by Jim King
Mar 18 2010
12:32 PM

Kubi920 must not have read this article very carefully, as the case against the Rat is well made and solidly supported by facts. People like you remind of me those who try to say that Hitler didn't order the Holocaust because his signature doesn't appear on anything ordering it. The Rat's signature does appear on a document threatening excommunication for anyone who exposes the cover up. As for the transfer of the priest involved with that 11-year-old. 1982? Please. "I have heard" is not a way to make a solid case. Facts. I know the religious are not used to dealing with facts, but come on - that is ridiculous. You might convince the weak-minded (see Dianne Wood for a perfect example), but not anyone with a fully functional brain.

by charming11
Mar 18 2010
12:42 PM

Hitchens 1, Desouza 0, property taxes -1

by Haefen
Mar 18 2010
12:44 PM

Clearly an anti-catholic article and not very objective.

You can see this whenever someone uses the "it for the children" or "save the children" argument.

Abuse is abuse and should be a criminal matter. It should not be a church matter as it is made out to be.

It is not up to Churches to investigate these crimes, it is up to the government. People seemed very confused on this.

Governments investigate crimes, the government will/should put those in jail who commit and coverup such crimes.

That this is completely missed in the article suggests hate may be the motivation of the article or maybe complete ignorance (which I doubt).

IMO Stop holding these public kangroo courts and start demanding investigations where warranted. Charges of false accusations should also be pursued where warranted.

It should also be noted that large companies of any nature have similar problems and other churches and religions have many more crimes committed than the Christians. Some religions have criminal beliefs and practices which are not hidden. We, via the courts, should take steps to investigate these very public crimes as well.

Just trying to incite hate may make for ratings but it isn't civilised.

by Shamwow Vince
Mar 18 2010
12:50 PM

To these people, it isn't about child abuse; it's about destroying a religion, and that is shameful.

Bullsh*t, unless the "these people" you are referring to are the clergy of the church itself - from the parish priest to the College of Cardinals and perhaps even the Vicar of Christ. And they've brought this on themselves.

The problem is not with individuals, it's institutional. If it weren't the offenders would be cast out of the church and prosecuted. Instead there is an organizational cover up of the whole sordid mess.

Religion is all about power over and control of peoples lives. The child abuse is merely another exercise of that power and control.

by Rhino Party Whip
Mar 18 2010
12:54 PM

Mangy: As if Catholics need any help. Sorry bud, the church is reapething what it hath sowneth.

As someone born into catholisism, I now get the heebie-jeebies walking into a wedding or funeral. (That gaudy pile in Ottawa had me burst out laughing. Didn't know whether to keep my eyes on the grotesgue thing above the alter or the one across the street!)

by Manganic
Mar 18 2010
1:06 PM

Shamwow Vince, you really should consider proofreading before hitting the "submit" button. In your comment, you call BS on my assertion that this is about destroying a religion, and then at the end you say "religion is all about power and control..." which outs your true feelings about religion!

Sexual abuse within the RC church is definitely more about power than sex, to be sure, but you can't claim the fundamental tenets of Christianity (and/or the RC church) by definition, supports this. It may be a systemic scandal within the organization a you suggest, which tells me that Catholics around the world need to pull together and "clean house," so to speak.

The comments here are full of glee and veiled suggestions that the RC church be declared a criminal organization; which is stupid.

by O'Kane
Mar 18 2010
1:11 PM

TO Haefen:

I don't think it is others that are confused but rather it is you. This is not a Kangaroo court. The government WOULD be able to investigate this if the church wasn't impeding the efforts to do so. I find it disgusting that you can compare condoning the sexual abuse and exploitation of children comparible to other "large companies". This isn't about stealing other people's money but about stealing the innocence of impressionable children and ruining thier lives forever. It IS about "the children". It IS about "the church" as it has been covered up for years. It is not about "inciting" hate but rather FINALLY bringing this horrific situation once again to light. (why has it gone on for so long and why did the current pope cover it up?) What is "not civilized" is the continued and accepted act of sexually abusing children just by the fact of covering it up. Shame on you. Keep it objective; the church is not all bad, but please know that it definately is not all good.

by ztisdale
Mar 18 2010
1:11 PM

The Catholic Church: rape, lies, murder, homophobia, and profound ignorace...

But don't blame all Catholics for what the Church does, they merely provide the funds...oh...

by KM55
Mar 18 2010
1:15 PM

Stalin

Leon Trotsky

Lenin

Marquis de Sade

Mao

Pol Pot

Jeffery Dahmer

Ted Kaczynski

Ted Bundy

The Shooters at Columbine

These were all infamous atheists. Using the rationale of Hitchens and the other atheists writing in, all other atheists must be of the same ilk as these people....or do generalizations only apply to Catholic priests and Catholics in general?

by O'Kane
Mar 18 2010
1:15 PM

to Manganic;

I mostly agree with your comments except about the RC church not being a criminal organization. I beg to differ...what else would you call the continued covering up of the sexual abuse of children? The RC church knew that crimes were being committed and organized it to be covered up. An criminal organization does not have to be a "mafia" in order to be declared one. The non-action and complicite natural of the who sad situation is criminal.

by supernova92
Mar 18 2010
1:26 PM

yup this forum has gone of the deep end!

Rhino you are a fool when you write "I now get the heebie-jeebies walking into a wedding or funeral"

Look Rhino the chances that your kid is gonna get molested are still higher if you put them in a secular institution.

Rhino do you get the heebie-jeebies when you put place they kids in a day care, or drop them off at school? You better, because statisticaly there is a greater chance that they will get molested. Wake up!

As for Roman catholic church, they need to get their act together because this stuff is disgusting!

by warrior_of_the_light
Mar 18 2010
1:27 PM

Methinks I smell a 'ratz'. Hitchens is to be lauded for ratting out the ratznest.

Would the Catholic Church have us believe that pedophiles should continue be, umm, revered as in Reverend Child Molester?

The denials and coverups by the RC church are ongoing. Those efforts can only be described as aiding and abetting criminality within the ranks of the clergy. As such, the RC church's high priests are members of an ongoing criminal conspiracy to stonewall and obfuscate in order to protect their own. This reveals their acts for what can justifiably be described as a criminal enterprise.

by Joseph Kerr
Mar 18 2010
1:28 PM

Manganic, you've missed the point completely. It's not just about "deal[ing] with the abusers" but also those complicit in covering up these disgusting acts and doing nothing to prevent future attacks. In fact, by moving the abusers around, they facilitated further attacks. As this was done at the upper echelons of the Church then the Church itself shoulders the blame. Perhaps the abuse was committed by a few evil men, but the subsequent cover-up was institutional.

by straightenupandflyright
Mar 18 2010
1:34 PM

To Fr. Tim who wrote: "Your claim that the RC Church is "filled with rampant buggery" is both wrong and hateful. Sorry to disappoint you."

I am neither wrong nor hateful. Nature alone should teach you fellas that the reproductive organs are meant to express love first and procreate second, in a marriage. There are a number--yourself presumably included--that are well-meaning and dedicated to the tenets of said faith. Nevertheless, throwing out a redherring does not negate the fact of the matter, that the RC is rife with buggery, to wit it has taken form in child molestation. What is now being reported in the news vis-a-vis the child abuse claims is just a shard of a large iron anchor which will further sink the RC into a hall of mirrors. It's easy to have a tin ear when you have a bucket on your head.

by hunter902
Mar 18 2010
1:40 PM

@ Km55

Eggs

Toast

yogurt

OJ

coffee

What do our lists have in common?

They both have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The catholic organization continues its complicity in the abuse of children because of the apologists and justifiers it has within. If not for those who turn a blind eye or come up with excuses for this organization, they could not continue.

Be part of the solution, not the problem.

by Manganic
Mar 18 2010
1:45 PM

O'kane: The point I was making is that the religious beliefs of the members of the church should not be called into question. The RC church has hundreds of thousands of individual members who live very moral and upstanding lives. There are thousands of grassroots-level priests who watch over small parishes who are well liked, respected, and live very devout lives, and do not abuse children.

Abuse has happened. Yes. It has been covered up. Yes. There are those within the church who have enabled it. Yes. I'd even agree the issue is systemic - meaning the organizational backbone has been involved in abuse, enabling, or covering up. I suggesting that various law-enforcement agencies should be investigating and putting those responsible behind bars - up to and including the Pope himself.

That said, the church is not a criminal organization like the mafia or Al queda.

The problem is Vatican City is considered to be a sovereign state, so I'm not sure about the legal ramifications of arresting priests, cardinals, or, if necessary, the Pope within the Vatican city limits, however we could contain them such that if anyone steps outside the Vatican, they're nabbed.

However, the statements by people commenting here are mainly in favour of totally destroying the RC church, if not Christianity itself, and, quite frankly, the discussion shouldn't be about that.

by supernova92
Mar 18 2010
1:51 PM

Joseph Kerr, good point.

by Shamwow Vince
Mar 18 2010
1:51 PM

Not hiding my true feelings about religion. I'm disgusted by it. My opinion; and I'm every bit as entitled to is as you are to yours.

It is now and always has been about controlling the masses for the benefit of those running the show. Priests may take a vow of poverty but certainly don't live like it. Power over the everday lives of the congregations, prayers 5 times a day, weekly confessions, praying (read begging, grovelling, pleading). Do as we say or you'll spend eternity in hell. Oh yeah and - give us your money so that we can build ridiculously expensive temples/cathedrals to intimidate you even more.

And then there's the "my religion is better than your religion" crapola. Catholics and Protestants killing each other in Northern Ireland, Muslims and Jews, Hidus and Sikhs and Muslims and on and on and on. Let's not forget the greatest evil of all - MISSIONARIES. Those nasty conquerors of anyone who doesn't believe in their religion. Cloaking themselves as benevolent strangers and then demanding that people give up their beliefs and adopt those of the missionaries. Repugnant.

If the Catholic church, and any other religion behaves like a criminal organization then yes they should be treated as such. A crime is a crime and if an there is an organized effort to cover up those crimes then the organization is criminal. To say anything different is, to use your word, stupid.

I'll stop now as I'm sure your blood pressure is about to cause a brain hemorrhage.

by Manganic
Mar 18 2010
1:56 PM

@Joseph Kerr: if you had read my posts you would have seen me state that the RC church needs to deal with those who covered it up and enabled it. I refered to it as "systemic" - which it is - but the use of the term "institutional" implies the abuse of children is part of the belief system and therefore the RC church should be banned, which is ridiculous.

So no, I didn't miss the point at all.

by Manganic
Mar 18 2010
2:05 PM

Vinny: don't worry about my blood pressure; I'm secure enough in my opinions that someone expressing different (and incorrect) opinions doesn't bother me at all. The consequences of the actions you take based on your opinion - positive or negative - are yours, not mine. Conversely, of course, I will have to deal with the consequences of actions I take based on my opinions as well.

You did, however, miss the point I was making - your own comment above confirmed that this isn't about dealing with abusers and their enablers, but rather about destroying the church as an organization.

by blackknight7
Mar 18 2010
2:08 PM

Actually, atheistic leaders like Stalin and others made a point of infiltrating moles into the Church to subvert it like they did with all the major Western governments. It's well known there are bishops and cardinals who don't really believe. Only the best and the brightest would be picked for this. That way they can advance into positions where they can do lots of damage. This is what the 'smoke of Satan reference refers to'. It wouldn't surprise me if Hitchens is all part of an atheistic plot to attack the Church within and outside. Engaging in character assassination is a typical leftist tactic.

JP II and Benedict have been occupied with trying to clean up the mess.

Malachi Martin's writings are a good source on this matter.

by Manganic
Mar 18 2010
2:15 PM

One other point for Vinny to consider - by railing about all the "my religion is better than your religion crapola" you are, in fact, hypocritically engaging in exactly the same behaviour you're criticising - because you're advocating against religion,in favour, it would seem, of atheism, thereby implying your atheism - also a belief system - is "better" than religion.

by Shamwow Vince
Mar 18 2010
2:19 PM

And Mangy you missed my point. If the church, as an organization, is covering this up, they are a criminal organization, no different from the Mafia or Hells Angels, and should be treated as such.

Glad to note that you understand that each of our actions have consequences and that ultimately we are responsible for what happens to us. As is every church official who participated in either the abuse or the cover up thereof.

That is something that not a lot of people understand these days.

by jimshort19
Mar 18 2010
2:22 PM

Now, to be fair, there's no reason to believe that the Pope has had an altar boy blowjob since he was deified. The pope himself has helped to link pedophilia and the RC church. The rampant buggery was done by the priesthood at large. Manganic, "Sexual abuse within the RC church is definitely more about power than sex, to be sure..." Ya, and that's why it's ok for RC priests to stick their innocent penises into altar boys' mouths. Nowhere else will the boss let you off for it. It truly is an RC thing, institutional perversion, ipso facto. Manganic, as one aquainted with the pervert motive and the power erection that children can cause, say on. Say on!

by Rhino Party Whip
Mar 18 2010
2:27 PM

Supernova: How do you know the relative odds of getting diddled at a Catholic church vs secular institution? Have you been practising the dark art of clairvoyance? That's why we decry the cover-up.

If you're going to be throwing insults around, you best take more care with your somewhat less-than-impressive thoughts.

Frankly, I don't know how a catholic has the nerve to call anyone a fool. Bit of 'mote vs beam' for you there, smart-guy.

by Manganic
Mar 18 2010
2:27 PM

@Vinny

I have repeatedly stated that the RC church needs a house cleaning, but I will not suggest the RC church should be declared a criminal organization - that's just crazy. Punish those responsible, not the billion innocent people who are members of it.

This discussion is getting silly - everyone is merely repeating their statements with different words, and, quite frankly, it's getting old. We can't do this all day.

by O'Kane
Mar 18 2010
2:42 PM

@Blacknight7:

"JP II and Benedict have been occupied with trying to clean up the mess"

In particular, Benedict should have been more occupied trying to clean up the mess while he was still the Rat. He is not trying to clean it up, he is trying to cover his complicity of it; he knew of it and he condoned it by his actions and/or lack thereof. This is not new; it has been going on for decades. He seemed to have thought that the abusers would continue to get away with it and is now scrambling to "make it right". Too late. The only way it can be righted is for a clean sweep of the hiarchy, and for the church to admit what it has done. And I say church correctly. It has been the church that is covering up the abuse by it's clergy.

by Manganic
Mar 18 2010
2:59 PM

Jimshort - it's very easy to hide behind an alias and keyboard and hurl libel at people. Try debating the point at hand next time. You'll appear more intelligent that way.

by Kubi920
Mar 18 2010
3:06 PM

Jim King:

All I'm saying is that there are some missing facts, and that we should hold off labelling the Pope as guilty until we learn them. Hitchens says that it "took no time" for the abusive priest to be transferred to another parish; however, an article in the Edmonton Journal says that said priest was put in therapy in 1980 and then "given pastoral duties two years later, after Ratzinger had been transferred to the Vatican." That's hardly "wasting no time." Something doesn't add up. I want a precise date telling us when this pervert was assigned to a parish. Only then can we make judgments. If new revelations emerge that tell us Ratzinger was guilty, I'll stop defending him.

As a Catholic, my allegiance is to the Church, not necessarily to the people who lead it. There's a difference. In fact, my allegiance to the Church forces me to speak out against its bishops who corrupt it by covering up abuse. I just don't think the current facts can prove that Ratzinger was one of those bishops. This whole thing is suspicious, but not definitive.

by AJR79
Mar 18 2010
3:09 PM

Hitchen and Fry dismantle two Catholic "thinkers":

www.youtube.com/watch

I want these people punished in this world.

I'm not content to wait for the next one, or claim the blood of the human sacrifice, is enough to wash these sins clean.

It's not.

Not even close.

by jimshort19
Mar 18 2010
3:19 PM

Manganic, what on earth are you on about? Is Menganic a Christian name? Jim Short is mine. Are you some sort of a fool? Slow down man. We got your goat. Your goat is Catholic. Your goat's a fool.

by O'Kane
Mar 18 2010
3:21 PM

to Kubi920

The Rat was in charge of the committee (I can only call it the Docitrine of lies) that was supposed to investigate this a very long time ago. He has authored a report on how it was to be addressed. He knew. You are admirable to keeping your faith in the church; please don't be blinded by that faith.

by Haefen
Mar 18 2010
3:24 PM

'Kane:

It is not about the children, it is the rule of law.

That you think these churches are more powerful than governments is rather old school. The Pope is not in charge of our criminal justice system, we are.

by Manganic
Mar 18 2010
3:37 PM

Jim Short: I am accusing you of libel. In your original post, you say, "Manganic, as one aquainted with the pervert motive and the power erection that children can cause..." You are implying I'm a paedophile.

That is libel.

As for getting "my goat" as you call it, I'm not a Catholic, and if you had been able to read, you would have seen me advocating for the prosecution of those responsible for both the abuse and those enabling and/or concealing it.

by CrisA
Mar 18 2010
3:55 PM

“The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity……”

Hitchens may not belive in the devil, but his own words resonate as something spewing forth from Screwtape’s hateful mouth. Were justice applied according to his “just” measure, we would be burning homosexual paedophiles at the stake. What goes around comes around. Think about it.

by O'Kane
Mar 18 2010
4:04 PM

@ Haefen.

This is not about the children.... REALLY? The fact that the clergy of the church sexually abused children does not give you even a clue about what this is about? I am appalled that you would even write that. The church hid this and pressured parents of these children not to do anything (and yes I know, for fact, all about this!!). The rule of the law could not be applied as there were cover ups. The Rat pope is in charge of this church, was complicite with covering it up and there is no one that can convince me otherwise; he actually put it in writing before he became a benedict. The criminal justice system is supposed to be for all but with something as powerful as the church once was (and still is) we cannot control it. Take a look at all the issues in Boston. The church and the justice system were almost the same thing. The brainwashing that the church can do no wrong is at at end and we all should make sure that we are not still blinded by faith. Open your eyes and your mind; you will be disgustingly surprised.

by KM55
Mar 18 2010
4:26 PM

hunter902

Hitchens and people like you are constantly generalizing about Catholics (even though there are over 1 billion in the world) and about Catholic priests (even though only 4% at most have even been accused of sexual abuse). Therefore I think my comment made much more sense than anything I read from the Catholic haters. Let's face it, if the abuse scandal never occurred, people like you and Hitchens would find something else to use to spread your hatred of anything Catholic. Consider this. Surveys show that 30% of priests in the US and as many as 70% of bishops in the US are homosexuals. The vast majority of victims of abuse were adolescent boys. Do you harbour the same hatred for homosexuals. Or is it just the Catholic part that you hate?

by EdNigma
Mar 18 2010
4:57 PM

What a wasted effort by the Post.

Have discussion framed by a priest and a polemical atheist provides nothing reasonable to readers searching for a sensible discussion of a serious issue.

Kudos...

by Rob Talach
Mar 18 2010
6:43 PM

As a Canadian lawyer who has been representing victims of childhood sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clergy for close to a decade now I agree with Mr. Hitchens that something has gone horrible astray within the R.C. Church. For examples of these crimes of cover-up within Canada see www.ledroitbeckett.com/resources

For the countless victims of such crimes it is time to speak out. Tell someone, seek justice and start healing.

by Kubi920
Mar 18 2010
6:57 PM

O'Kane:

Not true. John Paul II didn't transfer responsibility for abuse allegations to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until 2001, 20 years after Ratzinger arrived in the Vatican. It wasn't part of his job description in 1982.

by Kubi920
Mar 18 2010
6:59 PM

EdNigma: I recommend searching for Damian Thompson's recent column. It's much better and thorough than Hitchens or De Souza.

by CrisA
Mar 18 2010
10:07 PM

Rob Talach,

We can all agree with Hitchens that something has gone horribly astray within the RCC. It is called sin. And it is not new. The recent scandals merely reflect the loss of the sense of sin. If this is serious for society, it is even more so for the Catholic priesthood.

Yet as Haefen points out, the Pope is not in charge of our criminal justice system, we are.

And while I agree with you that “for the countless victims of such crimes it is time to speak out. Tell someone, seek justice and start healing,” I also believe that crucial to the healing process is the capacity to forgive.

Yet, as Mother Teresa once explained, before we can forgive… we need to realise that we too need forgiveness, and it is here that humility of heart comes in.

by AJR79
Mar 18 2010
10:27 PM

Hitchens on mother Teresa:

www.youtube.com/watch

by fttruth
Mar 18 2010
10:51 PM

To hopefully add some truth and clarity to all the posts i've read, i would HIGHLY RECOMMEND viewing this video series. "NEW WORLD ORDER: The Devil in the Vatican

www.youtube.com/watch

go to right side bar for following parts. Regardless of beliefs/views a MUST view.

by Anonymous66
Mar 18 2010
11:09 PM

by Manganic - "Jimshort - it's very easy to hide behind an alias and keyboard and hurl libel at people."

And "Manganic" is the name on your driver's license?

Much wiser not to risk some pissed-off lunatic showing up at your house with a machete to take issue with something you wrote, don't you think? Personal information like name and location stays private for a reason.