This could be interesting:

<< Leading atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens seek Pope's arrest

Two leading atheists are investigating the possibility of arresting the Pope for "crimes against humanity", lawyers have confirmed.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are paying lawyers to investigate whether Pope Benedict XVI should be arrested when he visits Britain in September.

Mr Dawkins and Mr Hitchens, according to The Guardian, believe the pope should face charges for the alleged cover-up of sex abuse in the Catholic Church.

The Guardian reports that a letter written by the Pope in 1985, when he was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, urged that a paedophilic priest in the US not be exposed for the "good of the universal church". >>

http://tiny.cc/f5lnn

Interesting CJ.

Now watch as the atheist camp is villified for their calls for justice.

Some powerful religious folk, who care more for the reputation of the Church due to a warped view of the 'greater good', have knowingly allowed these predators access to children.

In any other sphere those who aid and abet child molesters are subject to the criminal justice system, it should be no different for the Church. And particularly since some in the theist camp continue to hold themsleves up to a higher moral calling.

Pericles,

"You missed the point, Proxy...

Those in Hollywood who have "defended Polanski's actions" (who might they be, by the way?) do not have the power to shield him from the authorities.

Or, looked at another way, the authorities do not consider Polanski's defenders to be sufficiently influential to prevent his extradition."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdQiQfxvJ8s
http://tizona.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/the-indefensibility-of-defending-roman-polanski/

Is that the point? I took it to mean that noone in the Catholic Church defends paedophile priests. Yet in Hollywood celebrities are willing to go public and downplay the rape of a minor.

I didn't take it as a reference to the actions of Bishops decades ago but to what is happening today. Perhaps Proxy can clarify what was meant.

"Not as far as we can see. But privately, they clearly didn't see the priests' abuse as meriting prosecution. Which is why they kept moving them around."

I still think Proxy isn't talking about historical norms and the actions of Bishops decades ago. Is anyone defending the actions of the paedophile priests in the media? The Pope describes them as "filth".

"Don't forget it was the church that singled itself out, by protecting serial sexual abusers from prosecution."

Do you seriously believe that only the Catholic Church did that back then? That is just one step away from thinking that most paedophiles are priests.

"And the only "mission" should be the church putting its house in order."

I know! Why don't they install someone at the head of the Divine Congregation of Faith who will change the policy on dealing with these matters and have them all immediately referred to the Congregation to handle so that they get actioned. Then the head could change the rules to make it easier to immediately defrock priests. Then definitions could be broadened to increase power to prosecute. A zero tolerance of paedophilia allegations could be adopted and policies to assist the past victims of abuse could be concieved and implemented. These could include an apology, free counselling, independent investigation, and compensation. How about then installing someone as Pope who is committed to "sweeping the filth" from the Church?

At least one country (how about US of A as things were uncovered there first) should have Bishops order their staff that all records of complaints be made available to University researchers to determine what exactly did happen in order to learn from the past. Then an apology to victims from the top might be in order.

Sorry that has already been done so you are obviously thinking of something else. What did you have in mind?

"Believing that deviant sexuality doesn't warrant trial and incarceration, is the problem."

I would have thought that abusing other people would warrant that but in any case I don't believe the Church supports either.

*How about then installing someone as Pope who is committed to "sweeping the filth" from the Church?*

Ah, I always thought that Paul Collins would have made a great pope!
But he would be far too honest for the Vatican hierarchy. So
the RCC muddles on regardlessly, losing significance in the West,
day by day. Given that they have loaded coffers, I doubt that
they are even concerned.

MCMorgan et al.,

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens should know very well that Pope would claim both sovereign and diplomatic immunities. The Vatican is unlikely to be a signatory to the Haig Convention.

The response instead should be diplomatic, internationally. Downgrade representations to the Vatican. Don't invite the Pope to visit. Domestically, be more rigourous with police investigations and confiscate Church land (for contempt), if given the silent treatment by Bishops: That could be leglisated, if the pliticians have the intestinal fortitude.

More significantly, there needs to be a bottom-up movement from parishioners, whom must overcome superstitious inhibitions about getting in the face of so called "holy men" about these crimes.

Please see post my previous (page 17) regarding "justification be faith alone" or "antinomianism" in context with possible clerical attitudes towards handing forgiven sinners to secular authorities.

The Vatican notion of not defrocking priests (reporting crimes?) because there is a staff shortage emphasises the urgent need for the subordination of Church to the State. These people were given special latitudes but abused the trust. Perhaps, given there behaviour, the Churches should demoted to the position of ordinary NGOs.