Why attempts to arrest the Pope were justified

Tag: england

contribution by Adam Wilcox

Back in July I argued that the proposed arrest of the Pope was legal, had precedence and morally the right thing to do. Thanks to the cowardice Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, arrest does not seem likely.

Sadly the ‘Pope’ condoms and abortion clinic visits proposed in the the “blue-sky thinking” [Foreign Office memo] are not going to happen either.

Still, it is worth addressing some of the comments raised by the original post, and give the reasons why this is a cause liberals should care about.

Story Continues below



1. The suggestion that the Pope is entirely blameless is wrong. Abuse cases have been uncovered in America, Germany, Austria, Holland, Ireland and Belgium.

Despite the playful tone of my earlier article, the Pope has a case to answer too in all seriousness. In 1962, then Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, charged with dealing with the brewing child abuse scandal. Ratzinger issued a confidential document to every Catholic bishop ordering complete secrecy when dealing with sexual abuse of children, not to inform the Police, and threatening excommunication for those who spoke publicly.

The pope holds ultimate responsibility for allowing the ongoing abuse of children to take place and for the Vatican policy of secrecy, placing the Church’s interests ahead of child safety. Channel 4 reported on the case of a Belgium Cardinal appealing to a Catholic sex abuse victim to keep quiet late last month.

2. Regarding the issue of the cost, think tank Theos found that 77% of Britons think taxpayers should not help pay for Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Scotland and England.

The Catholic Church is obesely wealthily for an organisation that claims to help the world’s poorest. Sarah Silverman makes the point better than I can. Yet despite the slashing of public services that genuinly help the British public- money is made available for the security costs.

3. I earlier failed to mention the Pope’s repeated attacks on homosexuality and gay marriage, and he has gone on record criticising Britain’s equality laws. In 2006, he said that the existence of gay people is a threat to humanity akin to the destruction of the rainforests.

The homophobic statements from Fred Phelps and daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper got them banned from entering the UK, but apparently the Pope in an exception from the rule.

4. Back to my original question. Why is the government protecting the Pope from arrest?

I believe in a liberal Britain, and despite being an atheist I believe that a liberal society should allow worship of all natures to be practiced without hinderance.

But I also believe that in a liberal Britain, the rights of sexual abuse victims is placed above, diplomatic relations, and powerful organisations. The separation of church and state is one of the key principles of Liberalism.

Placing Ratzinger above the law, simply because he is a head of state, or religious leader is diametrically opposed to those principles. If Britain welcomes to it’s shores the enabler of a worldwide coverup of child abuse then this is no longer a liberal Britain.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/09/...justified/