±«Óătv

I am shocked. The Belgian police seem to think that the rule of law applies to Roman Catholic clergy just like everyone else. I thought that the whole issue of secular law-making and law-enforcement versus religious privilege and 'benefit of clergy' had been settled at the end of the Middle Ages. Oh, yes, hang on, it was settled in favour of a secular legal system, wasn't it! Equality before the law and all that. Maybe it is time that someone told Herr Ratzinger what the outcome of that historical development was.

I like the suggestion PZ Myers made about this on Pharyngula:

"I'm hoping that they're just warming up for the big one — I'd like to see a UN raid of the Vatican, with a whole line of shame-faced old men in dresses led out to the paddy wagons like a transvestite Mafia mob."

They should really get their head behind the fact that this is the 21st century and that in modern days they are rightly treated as the criminals or criminal suspects they are.

The church just cannot get it's collective head around the fact that it has no special status under law and that it's own internal laws and justice system are not above secular law and justice.

The arrogance shown by Ratzinger in his letter shows beyond doubt why this problem will not be solved internally by the church and why there is little public confidence in the leadership.

It disappoints me that the Pope is not backing the Belgium police in their attempts to bring paedophile priests to justice. Police all over the world should be stepping up their efforts to catch Catholic priests who have raped and abused children. The Pope should be focussing on the "deplorable methods" of some of his priests.

I'd say the chance of a paedophile priest hiding inside the tomb of a dead bishop is slim to none.

Chris, three little letters:
D
N
A

Go figure.

mccamleyc,

With some of the things that have come out, I wouldn't take any chances.

Can the Catholic church really expect to be treated any differently than this after the years of cover ups etc that went on? They have not cooperated with the legal system in any way so why should they expect to be shown any courtesy? The police have to do whatever they have to to bring the perpetrators of these terrible crimes to justice. It should have happened sooner.

I must say I do not have any problem with the Pope's statement. He as a leader is doing his job and has only criticised the heavy handed method used. The way I see it the church is an institution, like any other. If I was a member of it but because one sector or even many members of it of it were under suspicion of involvement in these yes horrible acts but I get raided well I'd be a bit annoyed. Generalisations do not help, not everyone was involved in cover ups, or not everyone has refused to cooperate. Do the people in this blog only think this type of abuse is going on inside this one institution, catch a grip.

kierantherock

I think it might be helpful if you study the backdrop to the actions of the Belgian police.

In the 90's, the police raided the house of Marc Dutroux. They found the bodies of four young girls. Dutroux was a previously convicted sex offender. The investigation uncovered a warren of underground tunnels and rooms and a paedophile ring allegedly involving high ranking 'respectable' Belgian citizens.

A subsequent inquiry heavily criticised the 'innaction' of the police which led to the murders of those four kids. There was understandable outrage amongst the Belgian public and a feeling that this must NEVER be allowed to happen again.(This outrage was further reinforced when a similar case was uncovered in Austria.

Remember too that earlier this year a Belgian Bishop admitted abusing a young boy and was forced to resign.

Subsequent noises emanating from the the Vatican have proved that the Belgian authorities were absolutely right to act as they did.

Ratzinger and Bertone have complained bitterly about the desecration of Bishop's graves but have never spoken out so vehemently about the desecration of young children by their priests (until absolutely forced to.) In the same week, Ratzinger, Bertone and Sodano have also ganged up on Cardinal Schonborn after Schonborn accused Sodano of covering up for Marcel Maciel for years and of blocking investigations into Cardinal Groer in Austria. (Bertone even wrote the foreword for Maciel's book in which he lavishes praise on Maciel.)

"Only the Pope can criticise a Cardinal" says.... the Pope. Well he would, wouldnt he? The truth is that, left to the Vatican, nothing will be done because they themselves are implicated in all of this and because they have too much to lose.

And now a new Vatican department is to be formed to re-evangelise Western nations where millions of Catholics have walked away from the church because of "secularisation." One wonders just how much more whacky and out of touch this "sovereign" State will become before people wake up and dump the lot of them.

Ratzinger, Sodano, Bertone, Law and Castrillon Hoyos have very serious questions to answer regarding their behaviour over decades. One can only hope that more authorities act like the Belgians. This week's US Supreme Court's decision not to block charges against the Vatican itself proceeding through US courts, is a welcome start.

Jellyboy, did we not enact a tearful parting scene with you last week?

Oddly, I agree with about half of what you say. I think the Belgians have such a dodgy history that the police need to be seen to be active. I fear though, that this is what it's about - being seen to be active. Rounding up the bishops, digging up graves etc will all create a sense of activity, of massive conspiracy etc and I suspect when the evidence is sifted through there will be few charges.

As regards the US supreme court, I think they simply declined to hear the case, along with hundreds of others. I don't think it is of much significance.

Of course what was of great significance was the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights that marriage as protected and defined by the European Convention is between one man and one woman.

MCC,
That is a travesty of what the European Court ruled, what it actually said was

"The court observed that, among Council of Europe member states, there is no consensus regarding same-sex marriage.

The court has underlined that national authorities were best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society in this field, given that marriage had deep-rooted social and cultural connotations differing largely from one society to another."

The court also added that despite its ruling, same-sex couples could claim a right to a family life just as heterosexual couples do, but that this still "did not impose an obligation on states to grant same-sex couples access to marriage".

That as I am sure you know is neither a protection of or a definition of marriage. It is simply a non action which recognises the legitimacy of same sex based family life.

Or to put it another way I think they simply declined arbitrate, I don't think it is of much significance. It simply means they will not legislate to force member countries to comply, but have no problems for those that wish to have same sex marriage.

If the Catholic Church in Belgium had done the right thing and handed over to the police details of all allegations of sexual abuse made against paedophile priests the police would not need to have acted as they did.

Let those who have not sinned cast the first stone" It is easy, actually, very easy to condemn, criticise and persecute. I see a bigger picture. I wish to see redemption and healing eventually. Once we all get over the horror, anger and repulsion, where next? I am not a defender of the faith and I do think there are more than to quote a Pope “a few bad apples” A sea change is required big time throughout and I think this will happen. Sure you will have a few older men with older views who feel the methods of approach are heavy handed. They are used to a time where being answerable to the masses is absurd. Time changes everything however including the Church

MCC

The US Supreme Court declines to arbitrate. You say, "I dont think it is of much significance." Why do you want international law to protect paedophiles?

The European Court of Human Rights declines to arbitrate and you say it is of "huge significance." Why do you want international law to make gay people second class citizens?

You also state, "The Belgians have such a dodgy history..." Would you like to elaborate on that? Otherwise I'll just add 'racist' to your list of "qualities."