I’d take Brown’s chaos over Blair’s i

I’d take Brown’s chaos over Blair’s insane certainty any day.

Interesting times

Recent events in Egypt have been relatively peaceful, certainly compared to what now appears to be going on in Libya, but I’m afraid of what could happen next. Cameron has gone there today to meet members of the military and some opposition groups, but not the Muslim Brotherhood. Does Cameron’s endorsement, or lack thereof, really hold any sway? The Muslim Brotherhood is the closest thing Egypt has to a functioning opposition party and they’re poised to turn Egypt into another Iran. And now Yusuf al-Qaradawi is staking his claim to be the new Ayatollah Khomeini. I don’t much care for Gaddafi, but a fatwa?

Pope confesses to his greatest crime

It’s a tragedy that the Pope’s apparent crimes of organising the protection of paedophiles in at least four countries pale into insignificance against his past pronouncements on the subject of condoms. With 1.5 million Africans a year dying of AIDS-related illnesses, it’s hard to imagine how many of those deaths could be prevented if the Pope had the decency to venture out of the Dark Ages and admit he was wrong. And now he has! It’s a small step, to be sure, but it’s a step forward.

Claudy bomb report – church response even more stupid than expected

Sean Brady doesn’t seem to understand parody; he’s doing it to himself!

We acknowledge the finding of the Police Ombudsman that: ‘With regard to the role of the Catholic Church, when informed of the level of concerns others had about one of their priests, they challenged Fr Chesney about his alleged activities, which he denied. In the course of this enquiry the Police Ombudsman’s investigation found no evidence of any criminal intent on the part of any Church official’.

In other words, “We asked him, he denied it, what more can you ask?”

It’s entirely consistent with the church’s view of buggering altar boys.

The tragedy is that all of this pales into insignificance against Pope Benny’s pronouncements against the use of condoms, which contribute to 1.5 million deaths a year in Africa alone.

Testing Posterous

Posted to post

The Universe and your place in it

From the evidence, it’s apparent that our universe emerged from a big
bang some billions of years ago. If you choose to believe that that
big bang was initiated by a sentient creator, you’re perfectly free to
do so.

If you believe the creator has intervened in any way since the Big
Bang, you should acknowledge that the only evidence to support that
hypothesis is hearsay from interested sources.

If you believe the creator looked remotely human, you’re ignoring the
fact that human appearance is the product of evolution.

If you believe the Universe was created to give Man a place to live,
that’s hubris on a cosmic scale.

If you believe an omniscient creator made the Universe to see what we
would do, that’s Orwellian doublethink.

If you believe the creator, in his omniscience, could see the
consequences of his actions, yet you describe him as ‘loving’, you are
either insane or stupid.

Religion brings out the worst in people

A few nasty little individuals are gloating over Evan Harris’s election defeat. They’re afraid of science, afraid of anything that puts reason and evidence before a Bronze Age creation myth. It was ever thus, and they’re not even ashamed of it. Not far from here, in Glasgow, there’s actually a school named after the inquisitor who prosecuted Galileo. I struggle to understand the celebration of wilful ignorance. I’ve read Dennett, am reading Boyer and have Atran to look forward to; I’m sure there are sound evolutionary reasons for this stupid behaviour, but it’s still stupid. Dunning-Kruger effect, perhaps?

Respect should be earned

The emerging evidence suggests that the pope was involved in a number of incidents where paedophile priests were protected and their crimes covered up. I'm not aware of evidence that this was widespread or systematic, but the church is doing nothing to counter the widespread belief that it was both. Of course, one instance is too many, and it now appears there are three or four credible accusations that really need to be investigated. It is grotesque but true that these crimes pale into insignificance against his idiotic, but legal, pronouncements on condom use, which contribute to 1.5 million deaths a year in Africa alone.

And now the UK Foreign Office has seen fit to apologise to this grubby little man! For shame!

What’s in a name?

What am I? Skeptic? Humanist? Something else?

I'm a scientist by training and inclination. I think the word "rational" best describes my views.

The word "skeptic" has some notable aficionados, but I feel it's been devalued in the UK by the use of the term "eurosceptic" to mean "rabid, drooling, xenophobe". I'm not a member of the Skeptics Society, but may join one of these days.

I dislike the term "bright", but it certainly seems to have attracted lots of sensible rational people.

I am  a member of the (UK) National Secular Society.

I might join Project Reason, but I'm not sure whether to use my real name there.

The pope and the paedophiles

Stories about the pope’s involvement in covering up the sexual abuse of children have been circulating for a couple of weeks now, but I haven’t had time to consider them properly until now. I don’t recall where I first read the accusations that have been doing the rounds recently, but my sources include Christopher Hitchens at Slate, Johann Hari at The Independent and Laurie Goodstein at The New York Times. Heather Horn at the Atlantic Wire summarises some key reports of the issues.

In 1962, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF, formerly known as the Inquisition), issued an instruction, Crimen sollicitationis to all bishops worldwide. Its primary purpose was to provide a procedure for dealing with priests who seduce people during confession, but it had a footnote that said that practising homosexual priests and priests who abuse children should be treated the same way. Crimen sollicitationis said that all such crimes were to be reported to CDF itself. It also said that the very existence of Crimen sollicitationis itself was to be kept confidential.

What purports to be the full text of Crimen sollicitationis is available on-line. I’ve read a few legal contracts and acts of Parliament in my time, and they are models of clarity compared to this. But from a superficial review, it appears that the (US) National Catholic Reporter is correct in saying that

The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.

Nor does it require anyone to report a crime to the police.

Paragraph 74 under Title V of Crimen sollicitationis delegates to “the regular superior” the administration of canon law in cases of “the worst crime” of homosexuality, paedophilia or bestiality. But it also requires that CDF be kept informed of the results. Joseph Ratzinger was head of CDF from 1981 to 2005.

Ratzinger himself issued a new letter, De delictis gravioribus, in 2001. Again, the purported text is available on-line. This requires the local “ordinary or hierarch” to conduct an initial investigation, then inform CDF, who will decide whether “special circumstances” warrant the CDF’s direct intervention, or whether the matter can be left in the hands of the locals. As in Crimen sollicitationis, the involvement of the secular authorities is neither required nor forbidden, it is simply not mentioned. In the US, at least, it has been policy since 2002 to report all allegations to the police.

To summarise, if bishops around the world obeyed their instructions, Ratzinger’s office would have been informed of all allegations of sexual abuse of minors by priests. From the time he took up the post in 1981 until 2001, his office would only be told after the local church authorities had dealt with the matter to their satisfaction. From 2001 until 2005, his office would be consulted before the case was decided.

There are some specific cases in which the now pope was involved. A child, Wilfried F., was abused by a priest in Germany. The priest (who, unlike the victim, seems to have been granted total anonymity) was moved from one parish to another by order of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger. He then preyed on further victims. No evidence has emerged that Ratzinger knew of these further offences, though his deputy did.

The second specific case involves Lawrence C. Murphy of Wisconsin. He abused 200 deaf children. Despite the pleas of Wisconsin bishops, now-Cardinal Ratzinger swept this under the carpet.

A third specific case, this time in Mexico, was reported by Jamie Doward in the Observer shortly after Ratzinger became pope in 2005. Nine alleged victims accused Marcial Maciel of abuse. Ratzinger could, perhaps, be given some credit in this case as it is suggested he sought to have Maciel dealt with but was overruled by his papal predecessor.

According to the Doward article,

4,450 of the Roman Catholic clergy who served between 1950 and 2002 have faced credible accusations of abuse.

Another study, produced last year by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, reported that there had been 10,667 victims of abuse over the last 50 years in the US alone.

It seems likely that a significant proportion of those cases occurred on Ratzinger’s watch. If even a few of those were inappropriately concealed from the secular authorities, it seems likely that at least some of the victims will now come forward. On the other hand, if Ratzinger is innocent, he has the power to prove it. If anyone has been sworn to secrecy, as in Ireland, and if the oath took the form prescribed in Paragraph 27 of Crimen sollicitationis, that oath is binding:

… unless a particular faculty or dispensation has been expressly given … by the Supreme Pontiff.

If the pope has nothing to fear then he, and he alone, can release them from any oaths. Until he does that, there will always be the suspicion that some victims have been silenced by the fear of excommunication.