Skip to main content

Report Abuse

Pope or Pilate? Washing one's hands may be a Christian trope, but it shouldn't be a guiding principle. The latest revelations concerning the former Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to prosecute or defrock child-molesting priests, for the claimed sake of a larger purpose (presumably protecting the name of the Church) is chilling, and more Machiavellian than even we might have expected emanating from an Italian city-state with subtle leanings.

The Pope is leader of a Church with about a billion followers (communicants) and he shouldn't be collared like a common criminal when he visits the UK soon, as Dr Dawkins and Mr Hitchens now propose; but he is an uncommon figure, and if found responsible, or irresponsible, in such serious matters, his judgement, and moral fibre will have been called into more than just question - they may be dragged into the mire, and sullied beyond normal repair. Forgiveness for sins is a major aspect of Christianity.

But so is obedience to Caesar's laws, when possible. Sex offenders in universities, hospitals, churches, the military, schools, offices, - in short, all walks of life - should never be shielded, but need to be turned in immediately to the authorities. One hopes they will receive justice, compassion, punishment balanced with proper treatment - but not, ever, cover to continue harming the young. The Catholic Church is left wondering about their current leader - is he the man?
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
As a practicing Catholic, I share with my fellow communicants a sense of horror, shame and anger at the stories of abusive priests. However, there has been so much misreporting in the press that many of the facts of this complex matter have been lost to a wave of popular 'attack the pope' knee-jerk reaction (much of the sloppy reporting picked up in the UK comes from factual errors which first appeared in The New York Times). The Pope has never attempted to cover up wrongdoing and has actually been trying to bring order to these matters since they became his direct responsibility in 2001. Like any human being, the Pope has failings - just as Saint Peter had failings - but this is not a scandal we can pin at his door as if he were some macheavellian politician. I cringe at the prospect of his visit to this country being overtaken by a small band of anti-church protestors determined for some kind of lynching: Christianity in this country is already seen as fair game for open mockery. But churches around the world continue to draw the faithful - contrary to what the press might want to convey - and the Easter masses I attended at Westminster Cathedral were standing room only. This is a sensitive and emotive issue, but biased reporting doesn't help, it only stirs up prejudice.
Sun Apr 11, 06:56:00 pm 2010
Sheenagh Pugh said…
"The Pope is leader of a Church with about a billion followers (communicants) and he shouldn't be collared like a common criminal"

I don't really see that the one follows from the other, Todd; Pinochet was a leader of a nation and richly deserved to be collared in that way, ditto Mugabe. The pope differs in that he hasn't personally ordered any wrongdoing, that we know of - if it were found he had colluded in withholding evidence from the police, that would be a criminal offence but I don't think such has been anywhere near proved, so there's no real basis for a citizen's arrest on that ground. but the idea that a pope cannot, per se, be a common criminal is laughable; look at the Borgias!
Wed Apr 14, 01:49:00 pm 2010
EYEWEAR said…
Hi Sheenagh, I don't see much daylight between us on this one. My post goes on to argue that all priests and churchmen (sic) should fall fully under the law's jursidiction when or if they commit criminal acts, such as child sexual abuse; and indeed, the Church - a little late in the day - clarified they hold this position, in canon law - just the other day. The problem was with my wording. It was a pun, of course (collared like a common criminal, as in priest collar) - I believe the Pope, if guilty, could and should be punished. But should be treated like the uncommon criminal he would be (a head of state). Heads of state (as we saw with Nixon or Pinochet) can fall under jurisdictions, but different courts and measures are usually taken. I oppose a revolutionary approach, that gets out the guillotine, and doesn't follow the accepted international agreements and court practices. As such, the Pope would be entitled to the same protection under the law as anyone else - innocent until proven guilty, for instance. But, more to the point of contention - the way that Hitchens, Dawkins, and Monbiot are talking (and Monbiot also wants to arrest Tony Blair) - the Pope is merely a "bad guy". They have failed to indicate they appreciate the nuances of his non-secular (that is, religious, symbolic, even mythic) meanings and significance. He is a man, but he is also Christ's (albeit flawed) representative on Earth (as believed in by hundreds of millions of people). In British atheistic circles such calls for reflection on cultural and religious sensitivities are usually greered with snorts of derision - but the Catholic faith is too big, too embedded (indeed), and culturally profound a historic and living institution to be so simplistically wiped away. It's more problematic than that - this is a massive troubking dillemma. To not appreciate the need to weigh concerns and options, is to show shed all links to, and appreciation of, a very nuanced past. Religions are both good and bad - and have enriched society as much as they have impoverished it. I actualy believe religion, on the whole, does more good than harm, and humankind, without such a base, would suffer more ills than if relieved of religion. So, yes, if the Pope has been guilty of obstructing justice, personally and directly, he should be held accountable. But arresting him in a cheap publicity stunt in a Protestant country on a state visit seems a damaging and limited option. This should proceed through regular legal channels and the international courts. In my opionion.
Thu Apr 15, 12:57:00 pm 2010
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?
3 comments
Read more

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".
1 comment
Read more

THE SWIFT REPORT 2023

I am writing this post without much enthusiasm, but with a sense of duty. This blog will be 20 years old soon, and though I rarely post here anymore, I owe it some attention. Of course in 2023, "Swift" now means one thing only, Taylor Swift, the billionaire musician. Gone are the days when I was asked if I was related to Jonathan Swift. The pre-eminent cultural Swift is now alive and TIME PERSON OF THE YEAR. There is no point in belabouring the obvious with delay: 2023 was a low-point in the low annals of human history - war, invasion, murder, in too many nations. Hate, division, the collapse of what truth is, exacerbated by advances in AI that may or may not prove apocalyptic, while global warming still seems to threaten the near-future safety of humanity. It's been deeply depressing. The world lost some wonderful poets, actors, musicians, and writers this year, as it often does. Two people I knew and admired greatly, Ian Ferrier and Kevin Higgins, poets and organise
1 comment
Read more