40 thoughts on “Chief exorcist says Devil is in Vatican”

1. “The Devil in the Vatican? Nah…” followed by a picture of Pope Benedict?

   Not one of your best moments Jon. A real low point for this blog too. I have really given SHAFT the benefit of the doubt and have many times coming to its defense in my classes when students speak ill of it. My motivation to do that just took a big hit. Really, should I still argue that SHAFTers are serious, respectful, and respectable partners in the dialogue about the truth of things? Usually you see this ‘pope is the devil/anti-christ’ nonsense from masonic lodge types and the most lunatic fringe of sola scriptura christianity. Strange bedfellows I guess. Nothing unites like hatred.

   In anticipation of this response: ‘Come on, Harrison, can’t you take a joke?’ Yes, I can. I am no Bill Donahue and anyone that knows me would attest to that. I think I have pretty thick skin and greatly appreciate thoughtful satire. But I find this to be not only stupid but offensive.

   Reply ↓

2. It is not a very big deal that I was offended. What bothers me most about the devil line with the Pope picture is that it either (a) outs SHAFT as an empty-headed and juvenile exercise (which I sincerely believe it is not) or (b) SHAFT is serious but this a step backward and in the wrong direction.
   I prefer to believe (b) over (a), in large part because of my personal relationships with many of the student members of SHAFT. And so I am genuinely sorry to see SHAFT harm its own standing with religious intellectuals on campus who are/were inclined to take them seriously.

   Reply ↓

3. Wow. I was expecting a roll of the eyes on your end, Dr. Kleiner, but not this. I’ve found that I’m a terrible judge of what offends people, because I myself am very difficult to offend.

   This was just a joke. Maybe it was tasteless. Maybe it was juvenile. Maybe it was unfunny. But it was not motivated by hate. You would be hard-pressed to find evidence that I hate Catholics generally, or the Pope in particular.

   Some SHAFTers may not hold favorable views of the Catholic Church, but I’d be surprised if anyone thought the Pope was an evil person. I certainly don’t!

   This is not a joke about the Pope, this is a joke about a funny and unfortunate picture. I didn’t just use any picture of the Pope. The reason I included this picture of the Pope–and the ONLY reason–is that it appears the Pope has small horns (because of a man’s white collar). Absent this amusing picture, no reference to the Pope as a Devil would’ve been made. I did not mean to seriously invite–as some Masons and Evangelicals do–the comparison between the Pope and the Devil.

   I hope that clears up why I posted this. Had I known I would’ve upset you so, I wouldn’t have posted this. Sure, it’s fun to bait you from time to time, but the intentions are always playful.

   I’ll probably remove this post.

   Reply ↓

   • Note for those reading this for the first time: Jon’s disclaimer about the photo was not included in the original post and was added after my replies.

     After sleeping on it, I am sure my reply was knee jerk and emotional. I asked my wife about it this morning and her response was considerably more muted and gracious, “These are college kids, what did you expect?” I won’t lie, I am disappointed by it. I’ve gone to bat for SHAFT when it has been criticized by students. There have been anti-Catholic remarks here before (Jon should not be surprised that some SHAFTers think the Pope is evil, since he has been called “evil” and a “murderer” on this blog!), but I have let them go. But at some point I am not sure I want to participate with a group that has these tendencies. If you want to be taken seriously, you really have to avoid this garbage. Bottom line: I expected better so was personally disappointed by it.
     SHAFT actually gets quite a bit of attention. A noteworthy number of my students (atheists and theists alike) look at the blog. SHAFT wanted attention and you’ve received some – but a cost of that is little slips can look bad. I can promise you, a student will ask me today: “So what about SHAFT comparing the Pope to the devil?” And, to be honest, I am considerably less motivated to come to SHAFT’s defense this morning. I wouldn’t expect serious atheists to participate on a blog where I made these sorts of jokes and insults. Only serious points of view deserve to be taken seriously. Why should SHAFT expect otherwise?
     Apology accepted. Forgive what might well have been over-sensitivity on my part.

4. Kleiner, how do you feel about the numerous comparisons of the Pope to Emperor Palpatine that exist on the internet? Do you find those offensive as well?

   Or is it that you believe that Emperor Palpatine is fictional and the Devil is not?

   I know there is an entire history of animosity and violence between Catholics and Protestants since Luther himself, and I’ve seen people call the Vatican “the whore of Babylon” and far worse names. They mean it seriously, primarily because they actually believe Satan exists and is influencing the Catholic Church, and souls are at stake. Many of the more crazy people in these groups would probably kill Catholics if they could get away with it, as they have in the past. As long as we’re going to be getting offended, I find your calling us “bedfellows” with them offensive.

   Thanks for having stood up for us in the past. If Jon’s silly internet .jpg means you won’t continue to do that, that’s unfortunate.

   Reply ↓

5. “There have been anti-Catholic remarks here before (Jon should not be surprised that some SHAFTers think the Pope is evil, since he has been called “evil” and a “murderer” on this blog!), but I have let them go…But at some point I am not sure I want to participate with a group that has these tendencies.”

   Correct me if I’m wrong, but only one person commented that the Pope was “evil” and a “murderer.” And one person does not a group make. So I think it’s rather unfair for you to say that this blog has anti-Catholic “tendencies.”

   “SHAFT actually gets quite a bit of attention. A noteworthy number of my students (atheists and theists alike) look at the blog.”

   This is (welcome) news to me. I wish they’d participate more in the discussions. Were I aware of who exactly followed this blog, I’d exercise more self-censorship. When I make posts like this one, they are (what I intend to be) just playful and friendly jabs at you. And most of the commenters on this blog know each other and know me, so I thought I’d be safe making these posts and not having them misread as hatred for Catholicism. But if it’s true that we have a wider audience, I need to be more careful.

   “I wouldn’t expect serious atheists to participate on a blog where I made these sorts of jokes and insults.”

   Again, I felt the joke was rather innocuous. I was not comparing the Pope to the Devil, I was only sharing a funny picture of the Pope where it looks like he has horns. So when your students ask you, “So what about SHAFT comparing the Pope to the devil?”, here’s how I’d answer:

   First, there was no actual comparison of the Pope to the devil. The only comparison was that in this one picture the Pope kind of looks like a devil (due to the appearance of horns), not that he is the Devil.

   Second, SHAFT didn’t compare anyone to anything. This post has one author (Jon Adams), and he takes sole responsibility for the post.

   Third, this was just a joke that was misunderstood (and understandably so).

   “Only serious points of view deserve to be taken seriously.”

   What view did I present here? Jokes are not to be taken seriously–especially my jokes, given my highly irreverent sense of humor. Were I to actually make an argument that the Pope was the Devil (and I never would), then I would not expect to be taken seriously.

   “Forgive what might well have been over-sensitivity on my part.”

   And forgive me for what might well have been under-sensitivity on my part.

   Reply ↓

6. “Or is it that you believe that Emperor Palpatine is fictional and the Devil is not?”

   James’ comment reminds me of something I forgot to mention. To me, as an atheist, a comparison to the Devil is almost as innocent as a comparison to Emperor Palpatine. My big mistake was in thinking that you’d take the Pope as a horned Devil joke likely. I should have realized just how real and malevolent the Devil is to you, though; I should have been more sensitive to your beliefs. And for that I’m sincerely sorry.

   Reply ↓

7. For the record, I don’t think Benjamin Ratzinger is an evil person. I think he’s a person wholeheartedly sincere in his beliefs, and he thinks he’s doing what it takes to make the world a better place. I just happen to seriously disagree with his methods and conclusions.

   I also don’t think he’s a murderer, but that his proclamations and disinformation about medical issues–such as the spread of AIDS or the efficacy of condoms–can, has, and will continue to lead to preventable deaths, especially in parts of the world that already have enough problems. I think his support for medieval voodoo such as exorcism (to bring the post back on topic) causes the mentally-troubled (or even just angsty teenagers) to be misdiagnosed and mistreated, leading to tragedy in some cases. I think that the Vatican’s chief exorcist blaming the church’s very extensive child abuse problems–which at this point can only be described as “systemic”–on Satan himself scapegoats an issue that needs to be dealt with transparently and out in the open. I am angered by Cardinal Ratzinger’s involvement in the widespread practice of relocating priests found to be abusers in order to protect them from secular prosecution and safeguard the PR image of the church and not its children. This is obstruction of justice. Tying this all up in a simple package and labeling it “the Pope is a murderous evil galactic Emperor” is too easy, and wrong.

   So yeah. SHAFT is empty-headed and juvenile.

   Reply ↓

   • James –
     I already responded to your claim that the chief exorcist was shifting moral responsibility. And on a previous stream I tried to debunk the view that the “voodoo exorcisms” “causes” (that is your word) mentally troubled people to be misdiagnosed. But I want to quickly say something about your other claims.

     You assert with incredible confidence that Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in the practice of relocating priests who were suspected abusers, but you have NO evidence for that claim. In fact, the vicar of that diocese has said that these decisions were made by lower ranking officials and did not reach the archbishop (Ratzinger was archbishop for a while). And the widely misunderstood CDF document about secrecy concerned only internal trials (defrocking) and did not mean that crimes should not be reported to civic authorities (and it is a general principle of canon law and moral theology that they should). So your overconfident charge that he is guilty of “obstruction of justice” is also, to put it lightly, unjustified. That there are some people leveling these charges does not make them true. The lack of evidence, though, rarely slows down the momentum of those who wish the Church ill since they now feel the wind behind their back.

     Look, the sex abuse scandal is an incredible shame and scar on the Church. The church is not immune to sin as she is populated by people. And I don’t think there is any question that the Vatican bureaucracy was slow to respond and needed to do a better job. That the Catholic bureaucracy is a massive thing that is, as are all bureaucracies, slow moving and cumbersome does not dull the justified outrage at the priests who were guilty of abuse and at those complicit in not rooting it out.

     This AP story gives a surprisingly even-handed review of the current scandal.
     http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35832466/ns/world_news-europe/

   • Maybe my charge is overconfident, since I’m just repeating what victim advocates themselves have said in courtrooms regarding obstruction of justice. I am, after all, trusting lawyers at their word.

     Regarding your link, which scandal are you talking about? There’s quite a few. Since I’m not able to read Latin, I have to rely on secondary news sources. The report by the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse indicates, among other things, a history of official cover-ups of pedophiles within the church since the 1930s. Considering that atmosphere–at least in Ireland, if not elsewhere–it’s no wonder that the MSNBC link you give has this at the end:

     “”One of the difficulties that bishops expressed was the fact that at times it wasn’t always possible to get clear guidance from the Holy See and there wasn’t always a consistent approach within the different Vatican departments,” he said.

     “Obviously, Rome is aware of this misinterpretation and the harm that this has done, or could potentially do, to the trust that the people have in how the church deals with these matters,” he said.

     An Irish government-authorized investigation into the scandal and cover up harshly criticized the Vatican for its mixed messages and insistence on secrecy in the 2001 directive and previous Vatican documents on the topic.

     “An obligation to secrecy/confidentialtiy on the part of participants in a canonical process could undoubtedly constitute an inhibition on reporting child sexual abuse to the civil authorities or others,” it concluded.”

     The bishops themselves couldn’t tell if the CDF directive from 2001 was telling them to cover up scandals or not, so they seem to have decided to just keep doing what they’ve been doing. According to this (rather old) article, the CDF letter considers the church to have jurisdiction for ten years after the victim turns 18.

     “It spells out to bishops the church’s position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric ‘with a minor below the age of 18 years’. Ratzinger’s letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been ‘perpetrated with a minor by a cleric’.

     The letter states that the church’s jurisdiction ‘begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age’ and lasts for 10 years.”

     In many of the cases I’ve read, “having jurisdiction” usually means they consider it an internal church matter and don’t feel the need to get the secular police involved, reserving it for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (whew, mouthful). The result has often been simply relocating the priest in question to another Diocese (even moving them internationally) where he continues to abuse.

     Also, the Guardian article seems to indicate that Archbishop Bertone disagrees with you that reporting these crimes to authorities is a general principle:

     “The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church’s opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.

     ‘In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,’ Bertone said. ”

     Although that is just one quote from an interview in 2003. Who knows what he really said.

     As an outsider looking in, and doing my best to keep up with the reckless pace of breaking sex scandals coming from the Catholic Church (and not just child abuse ones either), it certainly seems that Benjamin Ratzinger was involved, at some point or another. Indeed, that’s being argued in ongoing court cases now. Someone somewhere in a high position of authority is responsible. There has been an organized effort to keep these cases silent. It goes up above the level of individual Dioceses, perhaps up to the CDF. The church’s problem with child abuse is not just at the level of individual priests, no matter how demon-filled they may be.

     Whether any of this constitutes “evidence” for you remains to be seen.

   • Read through the Irish Commission report. It’s . . . harrowing.

   • If James’ point is that the scandal is widespread and horrific, you won’t get any disagreement from me. Does anyone deny this? We already have evidence that there were cover-ups, sometimes reaching the level of bishops. That is a great scandal that no one is ignoring. I’ve read most of the reports, they are harrowing, sad, tragic, and simply make me feel sick. But I am unconvinced that Ratzinger was ever involved and there is no evidence that he was. That said, I think he should have known, and that he did not illustrates a desperate need (which the US Church has already undertaken) for serious reform.

     There are two issues with the scandal: sexual misconduct and episcopal misgovernance. James’ focus has been on the latter – a matter that certainly deserves attention (the USCCB plan that is now before the Vatican does, on almost all accounts, an excellent job of addressing this). I think there are several issues involved here.

     One thing we are seeing is, sadly and tragically, the all too human effort to protect oneself and one’s associates in the face of potential disasters. I am not excusing it, just pointing out that the Church is composed of people who are prone to sin and fault. And the Vatican is a massive bureaucracy, I think that is as responsible for the failure to get clear messages across as anything else. That said, when we confess each week we confess not only for “what we have done” but for “what we have failed to do”. There was a clear failure of leadership to get clear on the problem, a failure to reign in the bureaucracy and episcopate to have clear procedures for such cases, and a bureaucratic and episcopate failure to have matters of grave importance immediately rise to top levels.

     Another issue is the widespread culture of dissent in the Catholic Church. We have many lay, clergy, and even Bishops who simply don’t believe the Church teachings anymore and refuse to be obedient to Rome (no matter how clear her directives are). Across America one can see this failure at all levels of the Church. One need only see Catholics on both sides of the aisle – from Pelosi to Hannity – who publicly profess things simply contrary to the teachings of the Church and act as if they are not. They, and other less notable lay, have for decades been coddled by the episcopate and are the result of the pathetic spiritual instruction that is either uninformed or simply intentionally dissident. My point is this: We are just coming out of a plague of leadership at the local and diocesan level that refused to engage the culture of dissent because they were either part of it or were unwilling to risk to risk local church unity. It is then not surprising that they were also unwilling to confront the scandal of sex abuse. In other words, the scandal was extended beyond the individual priests because of either malfeasant or timid bishops. In either case, this illustrates a failure of discipleship. To remedy this, we need reform in formation/catechesis, vocational recruitment, seminaries, how the episcopate exercises its office, and in how the Vatican gathers information related to local churches. I am confident that the changes made in the US will make a positive impact. I am also generally confident that members of the “John Paul II generation” will not have a similar crisis of discipleship.

     Regarding the scandal in the United States, most Catholics have faced the seriousness of the problem (no one has tried to brush it aside), paid considerable sums of money in reparations, and moved forward with new policies to prevent the abuse and systemic cover-ups that sometimes occurred. Most of the policies are very good, though locally some are actually rather too strict. For instance, our local Catholic youth group can no longer participate with the valley-wide multi-denominational Xian youth group (most non-lds christian churches participate) because the leaders of the other churches have not completed the now substantive required training required for anyone that will work with Catholic children.

     Having said my piece on the scandal and its sources and how to move forward (and I don’t really have anything more to say about it), I cannot refrain from highlighting what I see at the anti-Catholic bigotry behind a considerable amount of the reporting and focus on the issue:

     That people take up this scandal with such pluck does invite some inquiry. Why does the Catholic scandal get so much attention, when other similar scandals in are largely ignored? (note: I am NOT saying that the Catholic scandal does not deserve attention, but you’d be hard pressed to say it has been given insufficient attention). There is some “selective outrage” going on here. No one has paid any attention to recent studies on sex abuse in public schools (which appears to be even more widespread than the Catholic abuse in the US). Or to the widespread reports of abuse in the orthodox jewish community.

     Look, I certainly understand the thirst to pin it on Benedict – progressives hate (no other word is appropriate) the Catholic Church and would love nothing more than to defile it. But at some point the perpetuation of the story becomes about more than compassion for the victims and a desire for justice. At some point it begins to illuminate an underlying bigotry against the Catholic Church. This is not my over-sensitivity. Noted historians like Arthur Schlesinger Sr. have called anti-Catholicism “the deepest bias in the history of the American people”. It is the “anti-semitism of the left” and the “last acceptable prejudice”. It is alive and well both in the intellectual left and in the right (see the recent distribution of hate material against Catholics at a TN highschool). Archbishop Dolan makes many of these points here: http://blog.archny.org/?p=42

     So I think the focus on the story (again, the story deserves attention and it has received plenty!) often has its sources in something other than justice. One is just plain old anti-Catholic prejudice. Another is the hope, just below the surface of some who post on such things, that an investigation into the scandal would demonstrate something else: perhaps the falseness of the Catholic faith in general, the wrongness of priestly celibacy, the wrongness of the Church’s sexual morality, etc etc. But none of those things are demonstrated by the scandal, even though James’ post above basically ties them all together. What the scandal demonstrates, first and foremost, is the reality of sin and the desperate need for confession and grace.

     Again, most American Catholics are comfortable with the way the Church has moved forward. But yet even years after, at the time of the most recent Papal visit to America, every single article I read about Benedict’s visit included a mention of the sex abuse scandal. Again, one is left to wonder about the motivations behind those who are writing these stories.

     So as not to accuse James of such a bias, let me say that I look forward to reading James’ posts on other scandals (both religious and non-religious) with the same vigor with which he has written on this one. He should have no trouble finding other moral outrages on which to focus.

   • One more point: James referred to the abuse problems as “systemic” and “very extensive”. I just wanted to point out that research suggests that the rate of Catholic abuse (around 2%) is comparable to the rates of abuse in institutions (religious and non-religious) in general. Again, I am not excusing the abuse, just pointing out that there is not something uniquely “extensive” about the Catholic abuse.

   • James is “just” a blog poster (no disrespect intended), but the blustery overconfidence (and I think the anti-Catholic bias I discuss above) is unfortunately being imposed on readers from considerably wider read sources. The Times of London leads the charge with this headline in today’s edition:
     “Pope knew priest was paedophile but allowed him to continue with ministry”.

     Phil Lawler responds:
     “That’s grossly misleading, downright irresponsible. The reporter runs ahead of his evidence – standard procedure for a Times journalist – but even Richard Owen does not allege anything to justify the headline.
     Here’s what we know: While the Pope was Archbishop of Munich, a priest there was accused of sexual abuse. He was pulled out of ministry and sent off for counseling. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in the decision to remove the priest from his parish assignment – got that? remove him. He also approved a decision to house the priest in a rectory while he was undergoing counseling. We don’t know, at this point, whether the priest could have been sent to a residential facility, to take him out of circulation entirely. That might have been a more prudent move. We don’t know whether he was kept under close observation. But we do know that he was not involved in active ministry.
     Then the vicar general of the Munich archdiocese made the decision to let the accused priest help out at a parish. That vicar general, Msgr. Gerhard Gruber, says that he made that decision on his own, without consulting the cardinal. The future Pope never knew about it, he testifies. Several years later, long after Cardinal Ratzinger had moved to a new assignment at the Vatican, the priest was again accused of sexual abuse.
     A grievous mistake was made in this case; that much is clear now, and the vicar general has sorrowfully taken responsibility for the error. Could you say that the future Pontiff should have been more vigilant? Perhaps. But to suggest that he made the decision to put a pedophile back in circulation is an outrageous distortion of the facts.”

     http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100029771/catholic-fury-over-the-timess-coverage-of-pope-benedict-xvi/

   • James – it is not that “maybe [your] charge is overconfident”. Your charges are overconfident. As a man of science I would encourage you to avoid running ahead of the evidence. Repeating the unfounded claim that “it goes up above the level of individual Dioceses, perhaps up to the CDF” does not make it true. At some point it is put up or shut up time – stop making the irresponsible accusation until you bring evidence to the table (and the armchair claims of victims’ advocates who say “but come on, he had to have known!” do not qualify). By continuing to advance the unjustified charges – for which you have no evidence! – you simply invite reasonable people to question your genuine motives.

     James cites the article, which predictably gives the last word to the critical side, ““One of the difficulties that bishops expressed was the fact that at times it wasn’t always possible to get clear guidance from the Holy See and there wasn’t always a consistent approach within the different Vatican departments,” he said.”

     I must say that I think these deferrals of responsibility (‘we didn’t know what the Vatican was saying’) are pretty lame. There is no question, nor should there ever have been, that this things should be reported. You don’t need clear directives from the Vatican or any sophisticated papal instruction to know this. Had the priests and bishops in Ireland simply opened their Catechisms, they would know what Church teaching required:

     The Catholic Catechism, #1868: “Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: by participating directly and voluntarily in them; by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them; BY NOT DISCLOSING or not hindering THEM WHEN WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO SO; by protecting evil-doers.” [caps added]

     For those not familiar, the Catholic Catechism is a “reference text” on the teachings of the Church that you will find in the home of nearly every Catholic. The “general principle” here is pretty clear – when you have civic obligations to report crimes you ought to do so, and failure to do so means you bear some responsibility for the sin. This is not high theology or an abstract and unclear teaching that requires vetting by canon lawyers. Sadly, some (not many, but tragically some) of the episcopate simply failed to be disciplined Catholics and even decent people. But I have very little sympathy with this claim that they were confused on “marching orders”.

   • SHAFTers can probably tell that I am sensitive about this topic. For good reason – all Catholic should be deeply ashamed of the scandal. I certainly am. But I am also very quick to defend His Holiness from unjust slander. I have meant no offense to James (who really took the brunt of my frustration with the general tone – media and otherwise – of how this scandal has been discussed and reported). Anyway, I can be justly accused of many things – but being passive is not one of them.

     For those interested in actually hearing both sides, Monsignor Charles J. Scicluna (the chief prosecutor for the CDF) made himself available for a rare interview. You can read it here:
     http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/vaticans-da-sex-abuse-false-and-slanderous-charge-against-pope

   • I’ll freely admit that I could have been mislead by the amount of news coverage on this, and that unbiased reporting pretty much doesn’t exist anymore, and that it’s incredibly hard to do research on this topic without someone’s exaggeration getting fixed in my head*. That’s why I tried to go to direct sources that ought to be reputable, like Irish government reports. The German government ought to have one out soon as well.

     I will also freely admit that I disagree with the Catholic Church on almost everything, and that probably gets turned into indignation too easily. I consciously try not to let it turn into true bias. I also agree that there are plenty of other things–even other sex abuse scandals–that ought to get the same amount of outraged attention. Unfortunately, my attention is dictated by the general news gestalt more than I’d like it to be (as is everyone’s).

     The LDS Church ran (still runs?) a boys’ camp for “wayward youth” that sounds a lot like the schools in the Irish report I linked to. Kids get shanghaied to these camps in the middle of the night and abused/tortured, and some have died. Believe me, that pisses me off just as much as the one in Ireland does.

   • * Especially since some of the claims I’ve repeated are being put forth and (apparently) being taken seriously in court rooms, which I tend to hold to a higher standard than newspapers.

   • What is your opinion of this news story? http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0315/abuse.html

     Particularly the comments from Monsignor Maurice Dooley in the last few paragraphs.

   • My opinion is that this appears potentially troubling but the article does not tell me enough to judge one way or the other. The view suggested at the end is that the investigation was “in camera” (Latin for “in a chamber”) and so it would have been a violation of the legal rights of both the victim and alleged abuser to go public. That is a widely held legal principle. But I don’t know why the investigation would have been done in camera, and whether this was the request of the accuser or not. There might be good reasons for doing so investigations in camera (the article I linked to the CDF chief prosecutor discusses this). And the article does not make clear if Brady encouraged the victims to go to police themselves (since the in camera restrictions might have prevented him from doing so). If the investigation was in camera for a good reason, then it strikes me that he ought to have done that, and I don’t know if he did or not.

     I don’t see myself commenting on every story that comes out on this, but I will articulate (rather off the cuff) some general principles that look decent to me:

     Abusive priests should be immediately removed from ministry. In some cases it would not be proper for the priests to go to authorities. For instance, if the abuse was disclosed in the confessional since the confessional has and ought to have a “seal” of absolute confidentiality. This confidentiality is widely respected by civil governments as ‘priest-penitent privilege’. If an investigation is done in camera for good reason (not simply to protect the accused priest but also from the interest of the accuser), this might be another example. But in such cases the priest should certainly encourage the abused to come forward to civil authorities and support them as much as possible. It is only too clear that this did not always happen, though that it did not always happen does not entail that it was official Vatican policy not to.

     Regarding priests and bishops involved in cover-ups I think:
     (a) even the accused deserve a presumption of innocence and we should avoid the temptation to railroad priests who may or may not be guilty of cover-ups just because the mobs are angry but
     (b) the Church’s bar for action need not be as high as our criminal bar (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) and so I think if there is sufficient evidence that a priest participated in cover-ups there should be a consequence. As the USCCB puts it, there should be “swift, sure and final punishment for priests who are guilty of this kind of misconduct.” These punishments might range from removal, defrocking, all the way up to referral to civil authorities depending on the case and the evidence.

   • Just to be clear:
     Abusive priests should be immediately removed from ministry AND REPORTED TO AUTHORITIES UNLESS THERE IS A COMPELLING REASON NOT TO DO SO. I DO THINK, PROBABLY CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION, THAT In some PROBABLY RARE cases it would not be proper for the priests to go to authorities.

8. Personally, I think this picture is much more terrifying.

   And this JPII is just awesome.

   Reply ↓

9. I don’t really care to say much more. I already regret having said as much as I did. As I said, my response was knee jerk and emotional (though I think some of the following posts have tried to make it seem more innocuous than it really was). I wish I had only said “This was not your best moment, Jon” and left it at that. I would be lying, though, if I did not admit that my feeling that this blog is a discussion among respecting friends has been diminished.

   I think it goes without saying that the “devil” (real or fictional) carries considerably more cultural weight and meaning that the Emperor from Star Wars. Some atheists get offended when they are told they are devilish or going to hell. Not because those things are real (the atheist doesn’t think they are), but because of the cultural significance of those remarks.

   Fair or not, when a member of a group speaks, that speech gets identified with the group. Jon’s original post did precisely this with the Catholic Church. Does every Vatican bureaucrat properly speak for the Church? No, but are they taken to by popular audiences, yes. Same goes with SHAFT and its public face (this blog, particularly posts made by SHAFT members).

   My experience with the USU blog is that for every poster there are dozens of people reading who are not posting. If the SHAFT blog is meant to be a place for serious discussion about atheism and humanism, then I would encourage greater self-censorship. If it is just a club site meant for your guys to share some thoughts and laughs, fine. It is probably meant as both, which means you have a balancing act to perform. But you should know that many students look at this blog, and so this blog is (for many of those students) the “face” of atheism. What face you want to present is up to you.

   Reply ↓

10. Points taken.

    Reply ↓

11. It is probably easier and more exciting to cite the failures of religious humans than to discuss a positive way forward in a world of atheists, agnostics, and theists.

    I am still waiting for an extended SHAFT discussion of a ground for individual and community living. This ground needs to have acceptable language to atheist, agnostic, and theist. I still propose Predicate Theology as an atheist attempt to communicate with theists on common ground. All it concedes is language.

    I might suggest to Christians that there may be common language for the theist to speak with atheists. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian who was hung by the Nazi SS in 1945 for his participation in subversion of the Nazis, proposed to Christians a way forward towards an ethical society based on secular religion. I don’t necessarily think he became atheist as proposed by ‘Death of God’ theologians of the 60′s, but he did propose a secular Christianity. More likely he proposed that the modern Christian should immerse themselves in the secular world and become a secular Christian who recognizes that (1) there are no ‘gaps’ for a god-of-the-gaps and (2) scripture is ‘on Earth’ and must be interpreted without a heavenly voice of authority.

    Shaft, post a positive.

    Reply ↓

    • Vince, we’ve had several discussions on this blog about the issue of grounding our humanism. We haven’t, as a group, agreed upon a common grounding, but that shouldn’t be expected of us. What I do feel I owe the readers of this blog, however, is an explanation of how I ground and live out my secular humanism. That post is forthcoming—I hope to have time to work on it over the break.

      “Shaft, post a positive.”

      Vince, I think you may be guilty of a selective reading of this blog. I’ve published several posts that are fair to, if not sympathetic to, religion. My most recent post would be just one example of that. And that this blog invites and tries to take seriously the points of theists’, speaks to just how moderate a blog this is—especially relative to many atheist sites.

    • Ok. Thanks for calling me out. I agree that this is a moderate blog with an occasional foray into pointed humor.

      Please, note that SHAFT is one of two blogs that I read regularly. So both you and I can assume that you must be staying within the bounds of reasonable blogging, otherwise I would have stop reading long ago.

      I reviewed that last couple months of posts and there are several invitations to discuss issues of life and community, e.g., healthcare, etc. I will try to focus on the discussion topic of each post and just try to enjoy the occasional humorous poke in the ribs. Maybe I will occasionally respond with an equivalent poke-in-the-ribs.

      —-

      Just as Christians have their clowns and demons, so too SHAFT has its clowns and demons.

      Consider the atheist prophet Benito Mussolini in “Diuturna” (1921)

      “Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism.”

      —- 8^) We probably must humbly accept that there are clowns and demons in all sects of humanity. Now, what to do with them?

    • Vince: I nominate the prayer of St. Francis as the “official” prayer of ‘predicational theology’. It focuses exclusively on the “godly” as opposed to “god”. One could cut out the 2 references to God and I would think just about everyone (atheist and theist alike) would applaud the message.

      Lord, make me an instrument of your peace;
      where there is hatred, let me sow love;
      where there is injury, pardon:
      where there is doubt, faith ;
      where there is despair, hope
      where there is darkness, light
      where there is sadness, joy
      O divine Master,
      grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
      to be understood, as to understand;
      to be loved, as to love;
      for it is in giving that we receive,
      it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
      and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
      Amen.

    • Kleiner,

      I agree that St. Francis’s prayer could be lifted by Derrida with only ‘Master’ and ‘Eternal Life’ deconstructed. The body of the prayer embraces earthly actions.

      Is there a nod of approval or comments from SHAFT adherents?

      Vince

12. This seems like it touches on some of the things Austin Dacey was talking about a couple weeks back. Should cartoons never be drawn about Allah? What is the distinguishing line between what an atheist should or should not criticize about a belief?

    Am I correct in feeling that Kleiner’s problem with what was posted is because it wasn’t intellectually serious? That it reflected religion as a non serious matter? Is ok to criticize a belief or person, but it is not ok to tease (however lightly it was intended)?

    I can see that the post will make religious people (particularly Catholics) not take SHAFT seriously. Thank you for pointing that out Kleiner.

    Reply ↓

13. Ugh. I have not read all of the above posts, but I will say that I often feel like I’m the only moderate of the SHAFT officers.

    Reply ↓

14. Which I guess implies that Jon and I are radicals. Can you be more specific on what you mean by that?

    New commenters, here is the image that Jon removed. From a blurry stand-backish distance (or squint a bit), it looks like the Pope has tiny white horns because of the shirt collar of the man behind him. Don’t click it if you’re easily offended!

    Reply ↓

    • This is not all that important, but I did not even notice the horns when I first saw the picture, that is how subtle they are. I didn’t think the photo was offensive at all. What I found offensive was the [joking] insinuation that the devil IS in the Vatican followed by a picture of Benedict. Since Catholics here only too often this incredibly stupid insinuation, it can be a bit of a hot button for some of us.

      Regarding Ben’s point: for my part, I have no problem with a pretty wide open public square. I think the public square should be free enough to include disrespectful voices. I think everyone should have a voice, but there is no guarantee that the voice will be engaged and taken as representative of a serious intellectual position. I don’t post on the Dawkins site because (a) it is not local and (b) it is overrun by the most intemperate of atheists who, in my view, simply don’t deserve to be taken seriously. I don’t care to participate in dialogues that are already undermined by a lack of intellectual seriousness or, worse, that are characterized by vitriol. On the whole I think the SHAFT blog does a pretty good job of avoiding this ever-present temptations for atheists, and that is why I participate.

      Regarding the original (and now trimmed) post: The point made by the Fr. had nothing to do with moral responsibility. Priests who have fallen in with scandal bear moral responsibility for their actions. No one is denying that. The question is this: Is there spiritual warfare going on? And are humans the only participants in this battle? The Christian answer is ‘yes there is spiritual warfare going on’ and ‘no we are not the only participants’.

15. Also, point taken on the cultural weight of devils, demons, Satan, etc. vs. Star Wars. Although Star Wars is probably just microscopically less significant.

    Reply ↓

16. Perhaps atheism is a tool of the devil:

    2 Nephi 28:22: And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

    Reply ↓

    • Or perhaps Mormonism is a tool. I recall verses saying that many will preach a false Christ.

    • Ben, but that nothing should be done about them. The “greatest trick the devil ever pulled” idea has perhaps been around all of Judaism and Christianity. The anti christ wasn’t a giant horned monster, but a bringer of peace, a protector of all peoples and things, the one who will make your problems go away if you confide in him alone. Plato’s tyrant is a good…er…”secular” form of that, if that term can be used here.

17. Here is the First Things take on the comments by the vatican exorcist:
    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/03/devil-resides-in-vatican

    Reply ↓

    • Kleiner, not to be a pitchfork in the side, but that’s the story Jon linked in the blogpost (second one). Thanks for showing me that website by the way, its been an interesting read.

18. hello id want to know how you train to become an exercist because about a month ago i was sat on my bed and i saw a stange looking outline and it came close to me and i felt it touch my eye i lay down in my bed praying and all of a sudden i heard a voice and it said jiggly bum and i felt somthing inside my bum jiggle. i carried on praying ignoring the jiggle inside my bottom and the voice. then whilst i was praying the voice asked are you an exorcist then it said help because i ignored it an kept praying. after that i never heard that voice again

    Reply ↓