I want to appeal to Catholics now, in the final days before Joseph Ratzinger's state visit to Britain begins. I know that you are overwhelmingly decent people. You are opposed to covering up the rape of children. You are opposed to telling Africans that condoms "increase the problem" of HIV/ AIDS. You are opposed to labeling gay people "evil". The vast majority of you, if you witnessed any of these acts, would be disgusted, and speak out. Yet over the next fortnight, many of you in Britain will nonetheless turn out to cheer for a Pope who has unrepentantly done or defended all these things, and in the world beyond, many more will be urging them on.
I believe you are much better people than this man. It is my conviction that if you impartially review the evidence of the suffering he has inflicted on your fellow Catholics, you will stand in solidarity with them -- and join the protesters.
Some people think Ratzinger's critics are holding him responsible for acts that were carried out before he became Pope, simply because he is head of the institution involved. This is an error. For over 25 years, Ratzinger was personally in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the part of the Vatican responsible for enforcing Catholic canonical law across the world, including on sexual abuse. He is a notorious micromanager who, it is said, insisted every salient document cross his desk. Hans Kung, a former friend of Ratzinger's, says: "No-one in the whole of the Catholic Church knew as much about abuse cases as this Pope."
We know what the methods of the church were during this period. When it was discovered a child had been raped by a priest, the church swore everybody involved to secrecy, and moved the priest on to another parish. When he raped more children, they too were sworn to secrecy, and he was moved on to another parish. And on, and on. Over 10,000 people have come forward to say they were raped as part of this misery-go-round. The church insisted all cases be kept from the police and dealt with by their own 'canon' law -- which can only 'punish' child-rapists to prayer or penitence or, on rare occasions, defrocking.
Ratzinger was at the heart of this. He refuses to let any police officer see the Vatican's documentation, even now, but honorable Catholics have leaked some of them anyway. We know what he did. We have the paper trail. Here are three examples.
In Germany in the early 1980s, Father Peter Hullermann was moved to a diocese run by Ratzinger. He had already been accused of raping three boys. Ratzinger didn't go to the police, but instead he was referred for "counselling". The psychiatrist who saw him, Werner Huth, told the Church unequivocally that he was "untreatable [and] must never be allowed to work with children again." Yet he kept being moved from parish to parish, even after a sex crime conviction in 1986. He was last accused of sexual abuse in 1998.
In the US in 1985, a group of American bishops wrote to Ratzinger begging him to defrock a priest called Father Stephen Kiesle, who had tied up and molested two young boys in a rectory. Ratzinger refused for years, explaining he was thinking of the "good of the universal Church" and of the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke among the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age" of the priest involved. He was 38. He went on to rape many more children. Think about what Ratzinger's statement reveals. Ratzinger thinks the "good of the universal Church" -- your church -- lies not in protecting your children from being raped, but in protecting the rapists from punishment.
In 1996, the Archbishop of Milwaukee appealed to Ratzinger to defrock a man called Father Lawrence C. Murphy, who had raped and tortured up to 200 deaf and mute children at a Catholic boarding school. His rapes often began in the confessional. Ratzinger never replied. Eight months later, there was a secret canonical 'trial' -- but Murphy wrote to Ratzinger saying he was ill, so it was canceled. Ratzinger advised him to take a "spiritual retreat." He died years later, unpunished.
These are only the cases that have leaked out. Who knows what remains in the closed files? In 2001, Ratzinger wrote to every bishop in the world, telling them allegations of abuse must be dealt with "in absolute secrecy... completely suppressed by perpetual silence." That year, the Vatican actually lauded Bishop Pierre Pican for refusing to inform the local French police about a pedophile priest, telling him: "I congratulate you for not denouncing a priest to the civil administration." The commendation was copied to all bishops.
Some of Ratzinger's supporters -- including, extraordinarily, Ann Widdecombe -- claim that, back then, there were different attitudes to pedophilia, and people didn't know how wrong it was. In 2001? The fact they covered it up so carefully is, in fact, evidence they knew it was profoundly wrong. If they thought it was fine, why hide it?
Once the evidence of an international conspiracy to cover up abuse became incontrovertible to any reasonable observer, Ratzinger's defenders shifted tack, and said he was sorry and would change his behavior. But this June, the Belgian police told the Catholic Church they could no longer 'investigate' child-rape on Belgian soil internally, and seized their documents relating to child abuse. If Ratzinger was repentant, he would surely have congratulated them. He did the opposite. He called them "deplorable", and his spokesman said: "There is no precedent for this, not even under communist regimes." He still thinks the law doesn't apply to his institution. When Ratzinger issued supposedly ground-breaking new rules against paedophilia earlier this year, he put it on a par with... ordaining women as priests.
There are people who will tell you that these criticisms of Ratzinger are "anti-Catholic." What could be more anti-Catholic than to cheer the man who facilitated the rape of your children? What could be more pro-Catholic than to try to bring him to justice?
This is only one of Ratzinger's crimes. When he visited Africa in March 2009, he said that condoms "increase the problem" of HIV/AIDS. His defenders say he is simply preaching abstinence outside marriage and monogamy within it, so if people are following his advice they can't contract HIV - but in order to reinforce the first part of his message, he spreads overt lies claiming condoms don't work. In a church in Congo, I watched as a Catholic priest said condoms contain "tiny holes" that "help" the HIV virus - not an unusual event. Meanwhile, Ratzinger calls consensual gay sex "evil", and has been at the forefront of trying to prevent laws that establish basic rights for gay people, especially in Latin America.
I know that for many British Catholics, their faith makes them think of something warm and good and kind -- a beloved grandmother, or the gentler sayings of Jesus. That is not what Ratzinger stands for. If you turn out to celebrate him, you will be understood as endorsing his crimes and his cruelties. If your faith pulls you towards him rather than his victims, shouldn't that make you think again about your faith? Doesn't it suggest that faith in fact distorts your moral faculties?
I know it may cause you pain to acknowledge this. But it is nothing compared to the pain of a child raped by his priest, or a woman infected with HIV because Ratzinger said condoms makes AIDS worse, or a gay person stripped of basic legal protections. You have a choice during this state visit: stand with Ratzinger, or stand with his Catholic victims. Which side, do you think, would that be chosen by the Nazarene carpenter you find on your crucifixes? I suspect he would want Ratzinger to be greeted with an empty repulsed silence, broken only by cries for justice - and the low approaching wail of a police siren.
Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here or here.
You can watch Johann arguing that the Pope should be arrested on the BBC here.
Johann is speaking at the Protest the Pope comedy night at the Bloomsbury Theatre on Monday 13th. To buy tickets -- all proceeds go to AIDS charities -- click here.
You can follow Johann's updates on the Pope's visit, and other issues, at www.twitter.com/johannhari101 or email him at j.hari [at] independent.co.uk
Follow Johann Hari on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johannhari101
'Hans Kung, a former friend of Ratzinger's, says: "No-one in the whole of the Catholic Church knew as much about abuse cases as this Pope." '
The sexual abuse scandals were/are the most pressing issue facing the church and they chose the person they felt could be trusted to deflect the issue best because it is what Ratzinger's role had been before he was pope.
My late French lapsed Catholic father was fondled as a choirboy in 1920s France; my big sister found the local village priest where we had a weekend house inappropriately tactile with her when they were rehearsing for her wedding, and everyone knew he and his housekeeper were basically living as man and wife. It was a joke.
Time and time again priests have been found out having relationships with ladies in the village, or worse molesting children. When will the Catholic church let priests marry?
Diderot's La Religieuse sums it up well: it is unnatural to deprive humans of physical affection and love and love denied creates perversions.
I didn't realize that `celibacy' was an accepted defence in rape cases. "Well, your honour, in mitigation,
my client wasn't getting any, so when he saw the young lady walking alone..."
It is not only that celibacy goes against nature, but also that catholicism condemns homosexuality rather than recognizing it as biological. This produces the shame and guilt that cause these tortured individuals to act out sexually. This is the real scandal. The status quo must be maintained in order to continue to provide sanctuary for catholic homosexual men who are too afraid and ashamed to come out, which guarantees the continuation of their perverse behavior because they can never become honest with themselves and the communities they live in.
“Question: What do you call a boy that's been abused by a priest that he befriended, ignored by the Church that he trusted and forced to grow up in silence, both humiliated and angry?
Answer: "Father".
What is the expected result of destroying the self-image of a child by a figure with authority and power? Could the overwhelming number of men who enter the priesthood for access to children and the opportunity to abuse be the end result of the overwhelming number of devastated innocents sworn to silence by the church and denied the possibility of protection and treatment? How could this not be a part of a deliberate plan?
The Pope, when formally as Cardinal ( CDF) is guilty of the international crimes of conspiracy and obstruction of justice. This fact was pointedly brought to the Vatican by the EU (who long delayed action, perhaps awaiting the Irish decision and prompting from Bishop Moran), with Merkle as spokesperson in March of this year. Merkle's justice minister went further in accusing the Vatican of "covering up scandals"( obstruction of justice) The Belgians were now either given the green light (or simply took up the initiative) followed up with their planned raids of the headquarters of the Belgian Catholic Church three months later. Clearly some deal has been worked out, with interpol as of 2008 infiltrating Vatican police. Perhaps the EU, wary of potential war crimes by certain members and others in the Iraq war, have decided to keep the Vatican and Ratzinger/Benedict in place on a leash. Either way, this does not eliminate the real crimes of conspiracy and obstruction of justice by this current Pope.
The pope had to be driven out of "The Papal States" ( which included all of Rome and a good chunk of central Italy) by force, and the then pope (Pius IX) threw an enormous tantrum.
And the pope ruled that territory as absolute dictator.
It was about that pope specifically that the liberal Catholic Lord Acton (a follower of Cardinal Newman) said, "All power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
And during that period where the pope ruled as a monarch, there were acts of persecution and violence that equaled or surpassed many of the Muslim extremist atrocities you describe.
This sentence alone makes me question the validity of your story. First of all, priests don't say you will burn in hell for getting a divorce. That's nonsense. All priests I have ever had contact with are extremely forgiving because that is what Jesus teaches. Second of all, your husband cheating on you gives you a legitimate reason to have your marriage annulled by the Church. I don't believe that they wouldn't allow you to have communion. Maybe you went to a messed up parish or your story took place before the 1962 Vatican Council II where they made reforms but your story sounds fishy to me.
So you have gone to every Catholic Church in the U.S., and listened to every sermon?
You are Protestant
When one examines the conduct of MANY popes throughout history, it becomes clear just how flawed and human this institution is. (Just like any other.)
As I said in another post, people often make the mistake of conflating the church with the hierarchy.
The hierarchy is NOT the church -- they are only a small part of the church.
If you are going to remain Christian but protest the pope. You are a protestant
popes. The catholic church is not ministering to the faithful
by ignoring the endless problems within. I was raised Catholic
but I do not see the pope as my leader, and I will always
question the idea of infallibility.
The most appalling thing to me is the total lack of compassion for the suffering these bishops and the Vatican have caused.
In covering up the crimes of the abusers, in moving them from parish to parish (often overseas to escape justice) ALL without any warning to the parents of the new parish, they have caused untold harm to those victims and their families. They have destroyed MANY lives.
And they have the nerve to be feeling more pity for themselves, thinking themselves persecuted (yet look at the lifestyles many of these "persecuted" bishops lead.) than they do compassion for their victims.
They have certainly ignored Jesus' teachings about authority and leadership --- about NOT acting like princes and royalty and "lording it over the others" but acting as humble servants.
Maybe Jesus should "get over it" as well.
Although he didn't do that when he was here. He wasn't afraid to directly challenge the religious leaders of his day, and to knock over a few tables.
Remember, the ONLY time Jesus ever got angry was with his dealings with religious leaders.
Mark my words, nobody's getting me to join any organized religion.