I thought I was just a bit simple the other day when I asked why the police don’t arrest or at least interrogate the pope. I mean, am I missing something? So I was glad to read Richard Dawkins in The Guardian calling for Ratzinger to be brought before a court to answer for his role in the cover-up of institutionalised child abuse in the Catholic Church:
Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them. Imagine that, instead of turning the matter over to the police, he had simply moved the offender from school to school, where he repeatedly raped other children. That would be bad enough. But now suppose that he justified his decision in terms such as these:“Although I regard the arguments in favour of prosecution, presented by the local education authority, as of grave significance, I nevertheless deem it necessary to consider the good of the government and the party, together with that of the offending teacher. And I am also unable to make light of the detriment that prosecuting the offender can provoke among voters, particularly regarding the young age of the offender.”The analogy breaks down, only in that we aren’t talking about a single offending priest, but many thousands, all over the world.
Dawkins is now supporting an investigation into the pope’s complicity by Geoffrey Robertson QC and Mark Stephens.Advertisements