The Future of ‘General Blog’
I originally started my own blog as a way to organise my thoughts and to interact with whoever found them via Google. Since then, I’ve changed, and I want to express the nature of this change.
I’ve looked back on some of my posts, and I feel that at times I was too strong in my opinions, and I could have expressed myself less stridently and with more compassion and humility.
Because of that, I will probably change the nature of my writings and hopefully give the appearance of being more dispassionate and objective in my views.
This blog has served its purpose, and therefore I will probably not post as much or even at all. I will keep it here as a record of my thoughts and feelings from 2008-2010.
If I work out how to do it, I may start a different, new, blog, and keep the ‘older’ one, still online, but set up WordPress to go to the new one my default.
Barney Zwartz and Catholic Issues
I read an article online by Barney Zwartz who wrote about Noreen Wood who made a number of very serious allegations against a number of Catholic clergy and non-Catholic lawyers she had interacted with in the past. The author appears to uncritically accept everything she says, without any caution about the possibility that people may suffer if she is wrong. None of her claims were ever demonstrated in court and according to the article the evidence seemed weak in the eyes of an independent senior barrister who dealt with her. It is worth pausing briefly to consider just how serious her attacks are. Whilst some were confirmed by a independant lawyer as part of a compensation process, such findings are not legally valid nor, when the process is considered, may not be logically strong either.
The same author produces a fair and balanced summary on the exact same subject, that is, Noreen Wood’s complaints about the Catholic Church and others. I find it incredible that the same person could voice such divergent views in the same newspaper on the same issue. Is ‘objectivity’ that easy to fake?
Is the Pope Criminally Culpable?
Geoffrey Robertson, a senior barrister, has produced an article that is part-legal opinion, part-polemic, part-five-minute-Google-search and part-history lesson. It’s titled Prosecute the Pope and it’s published in its most complete form on a website known as The Daily Beast. I am not sure whether he created that title himself or if it was put there by an editor, but there is no indication that he feels that it misrepresents his argument.
It appears that Christopher Hitchens, someone for whom I have no respect has hired Robertson for an unknown purpose, probably to frustrate the Pope’s upcoming visit to the U.K. This much is clear from a post by Richard Dawkins explaining his involvement in the ‘plan.’ Robertson is someone I had respected greatly. So let’s look at the article itself.
Well may the pope defy “the petty gossip of dominant opinion.” But the Holy See can no longer ignore international law, which now counts the widespread or systematic sexual abuse of children as a crime against humanity. The anomalous claim of the Vatican to be a state—and of the pope to be a head of state, and hence immune from legal action—cannot stand up to scrutiny.
This a standard introductory paragraph intended to draw in the reader as well as summarising two core points: that the Pope may be guilty of “crimes against humanity” and that the sovereign status of the “Vatican” is poorly justified.
The truly shocking finding of Judge Murphy’s Commission in Ireland, tasked with investigating child sex abuse in Dublin’s archdiocese, was not merely that “sexual abuse was endemic in boys’ institutions,” but that the church hierarchy protected the perpetrators and, despite knowledge of their propensity to reoffend, allowed them to take up new positions teaching other vulnerable children after their victims had been solemnly sworn to secrecy.
In this paragraph he cites the “Murphy Report,” a commission set up in Ireland to investigate sexual abuse issues in the area of Dublin. It is true what Robertson says, that the “finding” was that all these things had occurred. It is not clear if Robertson is saying he agrees with these findings or just that they were findings and leaves the reader to infer what weight they should attach to the Commission, presumedly great weight. Most readers would probably conclude that he believes that it is good evidence.
This, of course, amounted to the criminal offence of aiding and abetting sex with minors.
This is, it seems, a correct summary of the law and adds rhetorical punch to this paragraph but it also brings up a contradiction – if the report is correct then there must be significant evidence of criminal wrongdoing among Dublin’s bishops, including those still alive, yet no charges have been laid let alone convictions secured. Could it be that some of the Commission’s conclusions are unsound and that evidence of individual wrongdoing is weak, as evidenced by the failure for charges to be laid?
In legal actions against Catholic archdioceses in the U.S., it has been alleged that this reflected Vatican policy as approved by Cardinal Ratzinger (as the pope then was) as late as November 2002—sexual assaults were regarded as sins that were subject to church tribunals and guilty priests were sent on a “pious pilgrimage” whilst oaths of confidentiality (“papal secrecy”) were extracted from their victims.
This is also true. These things were “alleged.” As to whether they are a fair reflection of the evidence is another thing entirely.
In the U.S., 11,750 allegations of child sex abuse have so far featured in actions settled by archdioceses (in Los Angeles for $660 million and in Boston for $100 million), but some dioceses have gone into bankruptcy and some claimants want Vatican accountability—two reasons to sue the pope in person. But in 2005, a test case in Texas failed because the Vatican sought and obtained the intercession of President George W. Bush, who agreed to claim sovereign (i.e., head of state) immunity on the pope’s behalf. Bush lawyer John B. Bellinger III certified that Pope Benedict XVI was immune from suit “as the head of a foreign state.
The claims that “some claimants want Vatican accountability” is true as well. It’s not clear that such desires are consistent with the actual evidence of Vatican complicity, at least as far as this article is concerned. And it’s also true that the claims failed because of head of state immunity halting the legal actions. It is not mentioned whether the legal action itself would have failed on its merits anyway, as some have argued. I think the intention of Robertson is to feed information to the reader that can be interpreted in multiple ways so that if people conclude he means that the action would have succeeded but for the immunity claim he can respond that he did not claim such a thing.
The third Mr. Bellinger is notorious for his defense of Guantanamo and Bush administration torture policies, and his opinion on papal immunity is even more questionable.
This sentence looks like an ad hominem attack. Even if the legal claims Bellinger made in these matters were flawed it does not follow that his papal immunity claims must also fail. Robertson makes this clear as he separately asserts that Bellinger’s papal immunity claim is flawed when considered on its individuals merits. But the question then becomes, if the papal immunity claims are unsound in and of themselves, why was it was relevant to mention these other widely criticised legal actions, if not to taint the man and therefore indirectly (and illogically) weaken his arguments?
He then goes on for three paragraphs arguing that the Holy See is not a sovereign state under international law. I am not willing to simply reject these claims but by the same token I am unwilling to just accept them. There are some articles I have read that appear, to me, to argue strongly against Robertson’s claims. The articles are by Neil Addison on the Religion Law Blog, ‘Skeptic Lawyer,’ Ivor Roberts at Times Online, and Dapo Akande on European Journal of International Law blog.
The U.N. at its inception refused membership to the Vatican (U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull said emphatically that it could never attain statehood) but has allowed it a unique and anomalous “permanent observer status,” permitting it to become signatory to treaties like the Law of the Sea and (ironically) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to speak and vote at U.N. conferences, where it promotes its controversial dogmas on abortion, condoms, and homosexuality.
I’ve quoted the aforementioned paragraph for specifically one word, that is, ‘ironically.’ I feel that this is the first point where he makes it clear that these claims are not allegations to be later determined by a court but established facts, because one can only state it is ‘ironic’ that the Holy See entered into those international obligations if the Pope, and by extension, the Vatican, is criminally responsible – something in previous and later paragraphs he is far more careful in qualifying as allegations. This is important because I suspect that as a human rights lawyer he knows full well the seriousness of such a statement and the need to make it clear his claims are not yet established. Although the phrasing would sound absurd, he really only had two possibilities, saying it was “potentially ironic” or not adding the comment at all.
If acts of sexual abuse by priests are not isolated or sporadic events but part of a wide practice both known to and unpunished by their de facto authority—i.e. the Catholic Church—then under the command responsibility principle of international law (laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court) the commander can be held criminally liable. He falls within the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC so long as that abusive practice and the policy to tolerate it continued after July 2002, when the court was established.
Here he is back to his previous tone, stating “if,” or “as long as,” etc. acts of abuse are widespread and systematic then certain serious consequences will flow. I would hope that this paragraph is a sound summary of international criminal law especially as Robertson served as an appeal judge in a U.N. war crimes tribunal, but by this point of the article I had begun to personally question his objectivity and concluded that his focus was mainly to advocate a narrow set of interests rather than to present the law in a detached and scholarly manner.
The first line talks about abuse needing to be “not isolated or sporadic.” Whilst this seems like a sound principle for situations involving mass summary executions or other kinds of murder it may be that his statement is not a fair application of the principle to matters involving sexual abuse. It could be that all sexual abuse is wide-spread as that is the nature of the crime. If, say, 1% of all priests were abusers then 1% of all priests in a given archdiocese would be abusers and thus one could claim abuse was spread widely (i.e. uniformly), but does that mean it’s therefore widespread in the sense he is using the word? It depends on whether the use of the word widespread implies a distribution or an magnitude.
This paragraph also touches on causation and control. He claims that it is necessary, for a successful prosecution to establish a “policy to tolerate” a “widespread practice” of sexual abuse “known” to those who are in control. How analogous the role of the pope is to a military commander (and thus subject to the ‘command’ responsibility principle) and how obedient those under his authority and “control” were are complex questions and this article does not appear to make a serious attempt to grapple with them.
Pope Benedict has recently been credited with reforming the “papal secrecy” system he allegedly approved in 2002, so that guilty priests may now be reported to civil authorities, although initially (and disgracefully) he blamed the scandal on “gay culture.”
Another paragraph and, of course, another allegation. Here he makes another allegation without clearly citing evidence that would clearly substantiate it. I am not sure where he got the allegation that Ratzinger “blamed the scandal” solely on “gay culture,” or even partially so. I believe this is a serious attack on the Pope that, I believe, warrants detailed justification in the same text in which the serious accusation is made.
His admonition last week to the Irish church repeatedly emphasised that heaven still awaits the penitent pedophile priest.
I strongly suspect that this is not a fair or balanced assessment of the long and detailed speech on sexual abuse in Ireland that Pope Benedict XVI gave. It is important that it be mentioned that many in civil society accept the possibility of reform and genuine remorse of child abusers (even if many don’t) as many of those convicted are given definite sentences and offered parole, things that many human rights lawyers agree with.
The Holy See may offer the prospect of redemption to its gravest sinners, but it must be clear in law that the pope does so at his own risk—as a spiritual adviser, and not as an immune sovereign.
This paragraph is far more clear about the nature of the claims he is making as he goes beyond mere allegation, to, as in his ‘ironic’ remark, established fact as the Pope is only at risk if he is in fact responsible for such crimes.
So, why did Robertson write such a piece? It may be that this article is a logically sound and rhetorically devastating attack on the Pope and Holy See and as a result of my biases I am incapable of seeing it for what it truly is. I suspect, though, particularly given the published responses to some of his claims, such as his arguments against the sovereignty of the Holy See, that this piece was created solely for the purpose of furthering Hitchens’ desire to prevent the Pope’s state visit to the U.K. by addressing not the courts or a community of scholars but the public at large who are in many cases unable or unwilling to critically assess the information they are given, especially from authority figures like Robertson, and even more so when such information readily confirms their biases.
My belief is that many will respond to this article by using Robertson’s reputation as a basis to make even more outrageous and false claims against the Catholic Church and Pope, especially those who dislike the organisation not just because of its genuine failings but by those who have a pathological hatred of the Catholic Church and its Pope for less than logical reasons.
It’s good and well to advocate someones interests but not though vague or unjustified allegations that many readers will instead conclude are established facts. In some areas, I believe, this piece falls into that territory.
I may be completely wrong and that’s why I’m qualifying my claims by making it clear that they are my own personal impressions. This article has resulted in me, at a subjective level, attaching little weight to whatever Robertson says, including areas I in the past I trusted him, such as human rights matters and international criminal justice.
Richard Dawkins Loses Last Ounce of Credibility
Richard Dawkins recently wrote an article The pope should stand trial. In it, he cites, amongst other things, an article by Christopher Hitchens titled The Great Catholic Cover-Up as proof that the pope, at the very least, has a case to answer for in relation to the sex abuse crisis within the Catholic church. I have already read that article and commented on it in the article I hyperlinked to. It is convenient that he referred to such an error laden article as it readily demonstrates that whatever he claims afterwards should not be taken seriously either, as anyone who would refer to that article as evidence of anything bar Hitchens inability to engage in the most basic critical reasoning and research has demonstrated that they should not be taken seriously.
The rest of the article, even when given the superficial attention it deserves, still produces surprising claims.
Lashing out in desperation, church spokesmen are now blaming everybody but themselves for their current dire plight, which one official spokesman likens to the worst aspects of antisemitism (what are the best ones, I wonder?). Suggested culprits include the media, the Jews, and even Satan.
Is he really suggesting that officials associated with the Vatican literally blamed ‘the Jews?’ If so, where is his evidence?
Why is anyone surprised, much less shocked, when Christopher Hitchens and I call for the prosecution of the pope, if he goes ahead with his proposed visit to Britain?
I’ll tell you my reason why I’m shocked. Put simply, the evidence you cite to support your claim is incredibly weak. You cite several newspaper articles and even quote from a letter but make no attempt to critically analyse or contextualise the material within the articles. Yet you behave as though your conclusions should be blatantly obvious to everyone. And on that weak basis you seek to have a man assaulted through arrest and deprived of his liberty though incarceration. You’re learned enough to know that we’re all capable of extreme self deception yet you seem unwilling to consider the possibility that you’re decieving yourself. And for that you can be fairly condemned.
It should be for a court to decide – a civil court, not a whitewashing ecclesiastical court – whether the case against Ratzinger is as damning as it looks. If he is innocent, let him have the opportunity to demonstrate it in court. If he is guilty, let him face justice. Just like anybody else.
Okay so let’s say that Ratzinger is cleared in a court. I guess he can go home happy that he proved his critics wrong. But it’s more complex than that. Being found not guilty would mean that he was defamed and vilified on an unsound basis, arrested and brought before a court where his own innocence was later demonstrated – after being damned world-wide as a criminal. But would that a fair outcome? Should those who defamed him then be the ones brought before the courts? What of Dawkins and Hitchens? If they are wrong then their most serious claims were the product of either gross ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. What should be the consequence for them? And what about all those who now feel permitted to indulge in their unrestrained hate-lust directed at the pope? People, like those on an ABC website who are fantasising over the idea of the pope’s public execution?
ABC’s Hungry Beast Program Misrepresents the Catholic Church
I was unsure as to whether I should post a response to a set of claims made in a program called ‘Hungry Beast’ that aired on ABC. Even though hardly anyone watches it I thought I’d respond non-the-less as a tiny fraction of my taxes paid for this crap. The offending piece is “THE BEAST FILE: THE HISTORY CATHOLIC CHURCH SEX SCANDAL.”
There are a number of claims made in it, and the most important all seem to stem from a few books written by either dissident pseudo-Catholics like Tom Doyle, or pathological critics like David Yallop. Doyle’s book in particular is utter trash, written with Patrick Wall, neither of whom have a shred of credibility on these issues and been shown to have seriously misrepresented Catholic matters in the past. And even if they hadn’t, neither has recognised skill in historiography and thus would be unwise to trust on such matters. So I guess we learn that the best way to understand something is to uncritically accept what its critics claim is true of it and not look for disconfirming evidence.
The piece misrepresents the 2001 letter from Ratzinger and of course, the 1962 and 1917 documents known as Crimen sollicitationis, enough that it brought everything else into disrepute. It feels great to know my taxes are going to perpetuate anti-Catholic conspiracy theories that I’ve done as much as I can with my meagre resources to destroy.
Father’s Prejudice More Important Than Child’s Welfare?
Carer in rights row
Sunday Herald-Sun, March 28, 2010, p.25
Liam Houlihan
“A government department blocked a boy aged under 10 attending a Catholic school – approved as suited for his special needs – because it would breach the religious rights of his father, who dislikes Catholics.
The ban put the boy’s education in free fall, saw him removed from a foster carer and dumped in a children’s home.
The boy, “Michael”, whose mother is dead and whose father does not have custody of him, is in the care of the Department of Human Services. His care team found him a place in a special school for children with behavioural difficulties that operates in the Catholic education system.
“His father contacted the foster care agency to advise that Michael would not be allowed to attend a Catholic school because of his intense dislike of the Catholic religion,” his former foster carer, “Sharon”, said.
“The DHS upheld Michael’s father’s rights to freedom of religion and belief and the liberty of parents and legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children conforms with their convictions.”
Sharon has complained to the Victorian Ombudsman about the DHS decision.
A DHS spokesperson said it was the role of the Children’s Court to determine the level of responsibility of either the department or parents in making decisions on a child’s education.”
If this article is an accurate summary of the matter than it’s a great injustice for the child involved. I initially felt outraged at the situation but upon reflection I concluded that the story relies heavily upon an anonymous source, “Sharon,” who gives her own assessment of the situation. I searched the DHS and Children’s Court websites but could not obtain any further information.
Christopher Hitchens on Papal Fallibility
Christopher Hitchens recently authored an article titled “The Great Catholic Cover-Up” for Slate magazine. In it he made a number of serious allegations against Joseph Ratzinger, currently the Pope.
The central allegations can be summarised as follows. Joseph Ratzinger was the supreme authority in a jurisdiction in which a priest abused at least one child. He became aware of these incidents and took the priest out of a position where he could harm other children. Crucially, he was also aware when this priest was placed back into a position where he could, and did, harm more children. The second claim is that Ratzinger, in his role as a senior Vatican official, wrote a letter to other bishops that required them to obstruct justice in matters involving the abuse of children. His third, peripheral, claim is that Ratzinger also sought to limit opportunities for victims to seek justice by imposing a ‘statute of limitations’ that would, by design, prevent victims achieving justice.
In regards to the first claim, that Ratzinger knew of a sexually abusive priest’s reassignment, Hitchens offers proof in the form of a quote from Catholic Priest Thomas Doyle. Doyle essentially claims that because of Ratzinger’s micro-managerial style he must have know of a matter as significant as the reassignment of an abuse priest. Doyle’s claims may be true, partially true, or false. Hitchens makes no attempt to demonstrate the merits of Doyle’s claim and simply assumes that it is true. Having ‘proven’ this allegation he moves his second claim.
Hitchens claims that Ratzinger, as a senior authority in a powerful Vatican bureaucracy, constructed an authoritative document in 2001 that ordered individuals with knowledge of abuse, even the victims themselves, to act in a way that prevented those involved in the abuse being properly dealt with by civil authorities. As proof of this claim, he quotes from the document itself, demonstrating the allegedly incriminating nature of the document’s words themselves, being an attempt by church to prevent civil authorities being made aware of abuse my Catholic clergy. In reality, the quotes are not contained in the 2001 Ratzinger document at all. He instead quotes from a document often referred to as Crimen sollicitationis that was written by Alfredo Ottaviani in 1962. Obviously, quoting from a different document by a different author does nothing to establish the meaning of the 2001 document. There is no indication he has even read the 2001 document, let alone properly interpreted it.
In addition to his own ‘assessment’ of the 2001 document he refers to two news articles on this document that he believes provide additional proof for this assertions. Again there is no evidence that Hitchens critically examined these articles, or even read them in any detail, rather than uncritically accepting bits of their content, regardless of their merits, because they support his preexisting prejudices. The first article he cites actually clarifies the distinction he fails to make, between the 1962 and 2001 documents, an indication the he didn’t thoroughly read an article he was using as evidence to condemn a person in the strongest of terms.
His final claim relates to an alleged additional attempt to obstruct justice by imposing temporal limits on the reporting of abuse. In this case he again uncritically accepts claims by others without assessing their objective merits, in this case, by accepting the claims made by Daniel Shea, a lawyer who sued the church and might conceivably have a vested interest in misrepresenting matters.
So, in conclusion, he makes three serious claims about Joseph Ratzinger, and as proof he asks us to uncritically accept the views of Tom Doyle and Daniel Shea, consider probative a quote from a completely different document, and accept on faith the reliability of two news articles.
Note:
High School Dropout Labels Rhodes Scholar ‘Intellectual Nobody’
And this is national news.
Keating labels Abbott ‘intellectual nobody.’
Linux
Dear Linux, I’m trying my best to love you, but it’s just not working…
More Windows XP Themes
As an addition to my earlier post on Windows XP Color Schemes, I’ve found a few other themes. The first is the Windows XP Royale Noir theme. The other is the Windows XP Zune theme. Both look cool, and make for an interesting change to boring blue, silver and green.