Dawkins, Hitchens, the Pope and abused children

  I hear Dawkins and Hitchens are calling that the Pope should be arrested for “crimes against humanity” when he visits the UK later this year.

 In evidence, he quotes a case where the Pope, as a cardinal in 1985, allegedly signed a letter arguing that the “good of the universal church” should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offenses against two boys. Dawkins and Hitchens believe he should face criminal proceedings because his “first instinct” was to protect the church rather than the children in its care.

On the one hand, Dawkins and Hitchens are definitely speaking from their anti-religious agendas. Neither of them have ever spoken up for other abused children, say, abused children in British state (secular) children’s homes, or child brides forced to marry older men in Muslim countries. They, as they accuse Pope Benedict XVI of, are fighting for the advancement of their view more than for the sake of molested kids. I harbor no illusions that these two men have suddenly turned into philanthropists, tirelessly working for the good of all children.

On the other hand, concealing child abuse is a crime. But what evidence is there of this alleged crime? In this case, the criminal priest already served his sentence in the 1970’s. Society knew about the crime, the children were heard. After the convicted criminal asked to be defrocked, the Cardinal’s (who is now the Pope) office wrote a letter, signed by him, that the case for removing Kiesle was of “grave significance” but required a careful review and more time to consider. The letter noted that a decision to unfrock him must take into account the “detriment that granting dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ’s faithful, particularly considering the young age”.

Can signing that letter rationally be regarded as concealing child abuse? I think better evidence than that is needed to accuse the Pope of this crime. And was it well-known in the early eighties, just how damaging child sexual abuse could be? If it was less commonly known then, it would be a reason not to judge child molestation concealment in 1985 the same way as concealing this crime now. What did the relevant laws say in 1985 about the responsibility of the employer of a child molester, one that society and law enforcement already know about?

I strongly believe that anyone- no matter who they are- should be prosecuted if they conceal child abuse. But the evidence that Pope Benedict XVI actually did that is not strong enough here. (Or perhaps not strong enough yet?)

PS: All this is academic, of course. As a head of state Pope Benedict XVI have diplomatic immunity.


About Retha Faurie

Attempting to question everything, reject the bad and hold fast to the good.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Dawkins, Hitchens, the Pope and abused children

  1. Retha says:

    Here is, perhaps, a source of information to put it all into perspective: http://countercultureconservative.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/study-abuse-in-schools-100-times-worse-than-by-priests/
    and here is a good, rather funny, dig at Dawkins & Hitchens for their newest opinion: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/04/social-autism-strikes-again.html

  2. Willem says:

    You are actually doubting that the catholic church’s priests frequently molest children?

    I suggest you watch “Deliver us from evil” – a documentary film about child abuse by the religious clergy.

  3. Retha says:

    You clearly do not understand. Nobody doubts that children are frequently molested by priests. People from all walks of life frequently molest children. Children are frequently molested by teachers. Children are frequently molested by the live-in boyfriends of mothers. Children are frequently molested by relatives. It is disgusting, whoever does it.

    I see no statistical evidence that priests are more likely to molest children than the average member of society is. I see actual statistical evidence that teachers molest more. (Almost 10% of children in schools are molested by teachers, yet parents frequently leave children there.)

  4. Willem says:


    If you are as open-minded as you claim to be, I suggest you watch the movie I recommended.

    As there is a trust relationship between the child and the priest often the victims do not come forward. That, and the catholic church are not upfront about priests abusing children.

    I would like to see your references for your statement about statistics and child abuse.

  5. Retha says:

    I would have taken recommendations from you, Willem, if you actually gave some evidence of understanding the point. I have no reason to believe your recommendation will teach me more about this point, as you gave no evidence of understanding the point- or even of reading what is here.

    Neither do I think it will teach me something more about child abuse, as I already know a lot about the topic, among others that it usually happen in a trust relationship.

    And the evidence that you did not read? You ask where I find my statistical data. Uhm, first comment, first link?

    I removed your second link as it says nothing on the topic. It shows that many children weremolested by priests (we both know that), but does not compare it to the rest of society/ everyone in jobs where they have contact with children.

What is your opinion? (Your first comment ever on this blog will need approval before it appears to the public, do not be surprised if that happens.)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s