Dawkins wants to arrest the pope

[Danny]

Doesn't a search for truth presuppose that truth exists and is accessible? Otherwise, what's the point of searching for it? And what does it mean to "believe" something if you don't think it's actually true? well its not such much belief as hope really. thats kind of the point from an athiests perspective. If you were told about events form the bible or kuran or any religious text your first thought would be to ask "prove it" but part of the point with religion is not being able to. of course it sounds mad at face value, that theres an entity, or entities that exist to rule over you, you have never seen them, never will and theres absolutely no proof, but thats sort of the deal anyway. Its more a search for self worth and importance. the universe is unfathomably big and we are the smallest specks that are gone in the blink of an eye, in the grand scheme of things we are utterly pointless in the universe and for many people thats a crushing idea. People want to be special, to be part of some great chosen few. we have kings and rulers that get distinguished above others but for the everyman for as long as we have existed people have wanted some semblance of purpose, of destiny. thats not something they need proven, its just what can push people to do greater things than they normally would, good or bad, but still greater under the impression that there is a plan behind everything. In all honesty i imagine religions like christianity werent started as some way to con people into devotion and money but as some sort of allergory about being a part of something to join people together. Look at the christian god itself. They are told about an entity which isnt the last of its kind, its just the only one of its kind that will ever be. and because its some all knowing omniscient creature it knows that the concept of "more than one" can exist but will always be alone so what does it do? the same thing anyone with an eternity of free time and godly powers would do. it starts making things 'in its own image' to fill the void as it were. The basic story of genesis is all about wanting more, to surround yourself with others like you, to basically just not be alone. cant find people like you? then find the next best thing. Theres no proof to this story they are told, they just take on blind faith that theres things out there just as lonely as they will ever be and it doesnt want either of them to be alone anymore. I imagine like most religions it gets added onto as time progress' but the basics of any religion remain the same "you are part of something bigger, death isn't the end, you are special" and some people need to be told that more than have proof of that, take away the business of modern religion and thats it, helping a person find what they need to feel they have a place in the world. Me im happy with knowing im a damn bacteria on the surface of a rock, maybe its something to do with being an artist y'know? i can make stuff that will outlive me, that can influence others and be part of a cycle of creative works that will outlive all of us. Guess everyone has something but i dnt need religion for the same reason im not a vegetarian. Im the result of billions of years of biological evolution, i know what i can do, i know my limits and im happy with what i am and dont need to change to suit some idea i dont believe in myself.

[EvilNed]

More accurate to say all Religions are human-perpetuated, Yes, that too.

[Terran]

Everyone needs to settle down with turning this into a Religion discussion and just briefly look at this rationally. I assume we can all agree that it is extremely irritating when we see athletes, politicians, and various other celebrities receiving special treatment when it comes to the law. How many times have we seen these people commit crimes and get off with a slap on the wrist or dodge the charges altogether, when if the same allegations or charges were brought against us we would undeniably serve time in federal prison. Lets avoid all this silly finger pointing and faith/anti-faith bickering. Stick to the actual issue at hand. To try and keep Catholic religion out of this lets use the name that this man was born with instead of "The Pope" and address the actual allegations. Joseph Alois Ratzinger. The Question is did Joseph Alois Ratzinger break the law when he held the title of Archbishop of Munich? These current allegations refer to events that occurred between the 1970s through the late 1980s. Thus far there are just a few events in question. Part 1) Father Peter Hullermann from the Diocese of Essen was accused of abusing several boys in the 1970s and 1980s. After being accused of molesting several boys he was removed from his parish assignment. He was then transferred to Munich for psychiatric treatment and this was formally approved by the Archbishop of Munich Cardinal Ratzinger. To summarize Part 1: Facts) Joseph Alois Ratzinger was notified that a priest was being accused of molesting multiple victims. Action Taken) Joseph Alois Ratzinger formally(signed letter) approved this priest's transfer for psychiatric treatment. Brief Commentary: Public accusations, general complaints, and letters from other priests are not protected by the Seal of the Confessional. Part 1B: Hullermann was eventually allowed to resume his pastoral duties in the archdiocese of Munich (Under Ratzinger), and several years later, he was criminally convicted of sexually abusing other children in a different parish Part 2: This period is particular unsettling. Not just for where Ratzinger is implemented but the general actions of Vatican officials. In the 1980s there was a sexual abuse case in the United States regarding Stephen Kiesle. Seems a timeline would best illustrate this situation. Stephen Kiesle Timeline August 1978 (Just 6 years after being ordained): Kiesle is arrested and pleads no contest to lewd conduct, a misdemeanor, for tying up and molesting two boys. Sentenced to three years probation, record is later expunged. 1978-1981: Kiesle takes extended leave of absence, attends counseling and reports regularly to probation officer. 1981: An Oakland Bishop John Cummins sends Kiesle's file to the Vatican supporting a measure to remove Kiesle's right to exercise the functions of the ordained ministry. The Vatican responds by requesting additional information. Brief Comment: So Kiesle is still a priest at this time. 1982: Cummins writes directly to Ratzinger providing additional information and warning of possible scandal if Kiesle is not defrocked. Later that same year the Oakland diocese writes Ratzinger asking for updates 1983: Cummins visits Rome directly, and discusses Kiesle case with Vatican officials in person. Later that year Vatican official writes Oakland to say Kiesle's file can't be found and they should resubmit materials. 1984: Cummins writes a Vatican official to inquire about status of Kiesle file. AGAIN 1985: Kiesle volunteers as a youth minister at St. Joseph's Church in Pinole. 1985: Cummins writes Ratzinger asking about status of Kiesle case. AGAIN Later that year Ratzinger finally writes to Cummins about Kiesle case. In the letter Ratzinger recommends "due caution" and consideration for "good of the universal Church". December 1985: A memo from diocese officials discusses writing to Ratzinger again to stress the risk of scandal if Kiesle's case is delayed. 1987 Kiesle is finally defrocked. 2002: Kiesle is arrested and charged with 13 counts of child molestation; all but two are thrown out after U.S. Supreme Court ruling invalidates a California law extending statute of limitations. So I am hoping many people read through this so now we can return to the question that several people seem to have echoed in some fashion or another. What crime has the current Pope(Joseph Alois Ratzinger) committed? If this was any common peasant citizen they could be charged with numerous crimes. The following charges definitely seem applicable to Ratzinger's actions (as well as other Vatican officials) 1: GROSS NEGLIGENCE: Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. 2:Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. 3:Willful and Wanton conduct: Which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury 4:Misprision: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. To avoid making this post unreasonably long Ill here on crimes Ill stop here since those are pretty clear cut. So I guess the issue then becomes if a given person from another country breaks the law of another country effecting it's citizens is it alright to arrest that person if they return to the country in question. If there's a legal precedent for proceeding with litigation how can federal prosecutors ignore their LEGAL DUTY to enforce the laws of their given country.

[Publius]

The following charges definitely seem applicable to Ratzinger's actions (as well as other Vatican officials) 1: GROSS NEGLIGENCE: Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. 2:Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. 3:Willful and Wanton conduct: Which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury 4:Misprision: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. To some extent I think you are confusing criminal law and tort law. Negligence, gross negligence, and willful and wanton conduct are not offenses in themselves but levels of culpability. At least the first two are mostly relevant to elements of tort claims. Misprision of felony is an English common law crime that still exists in U.S. federal law but has been abolished in most common law countries. Even in the U.S., it is construed quite narrowly (for constitutional reasons) and usually requires active concealment and not just knowledge without reporting. It's unclear to me how applicable the concept is here, even imagining all relevant events occurred in the U.S. Kiesle WAS prosecuted and convicted, and the correspondence in question (as far as I can tell) deals with whether he should be laicized (at his own request) after the conviction. Is there any evidence that evidence of additional, post-conviction, credible complaints were brought to Ratzinger? I know Hullerman was convicted at some point too, but am less familiar with that case.

[Terran]

To some extent I think you are confusing criminal law and tort law. Negligence, gross negligence, and willful and wanton conduct are not offenses in themselves but levels of culpability. At least the first two are mostly relevant to elements of tort claims. Misprision of felony is an English common law crime that still exists in U.S. federal law but has been abolished in most common law countries. Even in the U.S., it is construed quite narrowly (for constitutional reasons) and usually requires active concealment and not just knowledge without reporting. I must admit, that written Law, and its practical Enforcement appears to me to be, by design, arbitrary to those with the resources to practice and influence it... So it both irritates and confuses me.... As a result when I got to that portion of my post I did not give it my full attention.... Do you have legal experience, education, or just exposed to it regularly? Would be good to know for future reference because it is definitely not my strong point. What Im gathering from your response is that: Negligence, gross negligence, and willful and wanton conduct by themselves are only subject to damages/compensation. It is in the light of a specific crime where Negligence, gross negligence, and willful and wanton conduct are used to essentially assess the level guilt for a given crime. So I did a little bit of looking more into crimes. At least as it stands now these seem to be the crimes in question. (At least the ones I could think of at the moment) Child Abuse a. Neglect b. Physical abuse c. Child sexual abuse d. Psychological/emotional abuse B: Child Sexual Assault crimes a. sexual assault b. sexual molestation c. sexual exploitation d. sexual grooming What seems to reason that if Negligence, gross negligence, and willful and wanton conduct can be applied to these types of crimes it would appear that there would be a legitimate case against Ratzinger and other Vatican officials. I do not know if these charges already have a specific name, but in terms of how this is laid out here they would read like this. Criminally Negligent Child Abuse (including any of the variations) Criminally Negligent Child Sexual Assault (including any of the variations) To address the potential responses that could misunderstand the wording of such a hypothetical charge I want to add the following: This means that Ratzinger and other Vatican Officials of that time did not personally abuse the children but their demonstrated mental state of disregarding known or obvious risks to human life and safety exhibits criminal negligence. I hate using metaphors like news anchors do to illuminate what should be straightforward facts, because the metaphors can often misrepresent the reality of the situation. With that caveat though consider the following. Negligent Homicide/Manslaughter is a crime that many people have been convicted of. The classic scenario demonstrating a Negligent Homicide charge is if the defendant left a loaded firearm within reach of a small child. Therefore a scenario demonstrating a Negligent Child Abuse/SexualAssault charge would be if the defendant left an Abuser/pedophile within reach of a small child. Criminal negligence refers to a mental state of disregarding known or obvious risks to human life and safety. Now If this is a legitimate charge I think it is very clear that both Ratzinger and other Vatican Officials of that time would be guilty of it. However it is important to recognize that in terms of Ratzinger's /Vatican's involvement with the Peter Hullerman and Stephen Kiesle situation, that these crimes have now all past the statute of limitations. A hypothetical example I think is needed to what Ratzinger did: A grade-school superintendent finds out two of his teachers are raping/molesting several children. The superintendent assigns psychiatric treatment for one and the other teacher takes a leave of absence. Within a few years the superintendent reassigns these teachers to continue teaching grade-school, shortly afterwords these teachers begin to receive additional accusations of rape/molestation. Other teachers even begin to demand the removal of these two pedophile teachers, but despite the numerous requests the superintendent keeps this pedophile teachers assigned to teaching grade-school. It is not until several more years pass and the mounting concern of public and legal out-cry does the superintendent finally take action to fire these pedophile teachers. If this sort of behavior isnt criminal it very well should be.