Dawkins plans to arrest the Pope. No, really!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Manchu**

Something good can come from this situation. There need to be reforms in the Church. The culture of clerical authority needs to be done away with forever. The Church needs to totally accept that the secular world is not out to destroy it and so become entirely transparent. Probably most of all, our seminaries need to be completely rethought and reformed. Sadly, irresponsible reporting in the media and rabid ignorance among its audience will only convince the hierarchy that they are right about the secular world and so need to batten up the hatches even tighter. One cleric who has always viewed the modern world with a good deal more charity than perhaps it deserves is now serving as pope. One wonders if he will be able to prevail against the growing mood in the Curia that the modern world acts always in bad faith and should be utterly rejected.

**J.Black**

Ahtman wrote:
J.Black wrote:
Manchu wrote:Many bigots look at homosexuals as degenerates opposed to the social and economic wellbeing of traditional families. No reasonable person would lend this perspective credence simply because it is held.

But calling people bigots is just another form of bigotry surely?

Is calling a grape a grape a form of bigotry? Is calling a tree a tree a form of bigotry? If something meets the definition of said thing, it isn't bigoted to use the prescribed terminology. If someone meets the definition of a bigot, noting that that is what they are isn't bigoted, it is observation.

OK, I'm slightly out of line here :S

In my defense, the original quote is along the lines of: 'Many Bigots have-insert bigoted point of view here- opinions. I was simply extending the rhetoric.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Something good can come from this situation. There need to be reforms in the Church. The culture of clerical authority needs to be done away with forever. The Church needs to totally accept that the secular world is not out to destroy it and so become entirely transparent. Probably most of all, our seminaries need to be completely rethought and reformed. Sadly, irresponsible reporting in the media and rabid ignorance among its audience will only convince the hierarchy that they are right about the secular world and so need to batten up the hatches even tighter. One cleric who has always viewed the modern world with a good deal more charity than perhaps it deserves is now serving as pope. One wonders if he will be able to prevail against the growing mood in the Curia that the modern world acts always in bad faith and should be utterly rejected.

You are quite correct sir.

Unfortunately, the first religion to become 'totally transparent' will also be made a mockery of in the press. I guess they could see this as some kind of martyrdom but the loss of 'ka-ching' that would inevitably ensue seems to have put most of them off so far.

I don't think i agree that the current holder of the world's most exclusive hat is the best person to lead the catholic church out of the dark ages (he is far too conservative to appeal to anyone outside of the church) but, you may have a more likely candidate just around the corner.

**JEB_Stuart**

Honestly I doubt His Holiness is will be able to push the Curia in any substantive direction Manchu. I admire Benedict XVI quite a bit, and nearly converted to Catholicism because of his brilliance as a theologian, but I think that his election so late in his life will mean that any efforts he would like to see take place will simply be ignored or met with great resistance.

**generalgrog**

I would like to point something out that has been bothering me in this thread, and generally in the "real world". The term "catholic" simply means universal, in relation to the Christian Church, the Catholic Church would include the "priesthood of all believers", including the believers from protestant and eastern orthodox denominations. Not just the church organization headquarted in Rome, A.K.A. The Roman Catholic Church.

Also the term protestant simply means that we are in protest to certain beliefs held by the Roman Catholic Church, it doesn't mean we believe that they are the boogeyman or that all of them are heretics.

GG

**Manchu**

generalgrog wrote:I would like to point something out that has been bothering me in this thread, and generally in the "real world". The term "catholic" simply means universal, in relation to the Christian Church, the Catholic Church would include the "priesthood of all believers", including the believers from protestant and eastern orthodox denominations.

Agree 100%, don't see why that would bother you too much about this thread.

@JEB. Agree. Actually, BXVI's recent appointment for the Archdiocese of LA has greatly unsettled me in this regard.

**Ahtman**

generalgrog wrote:I would like to point something out that has been bothering me in this thread, and generally in the "real world". The term "catholic" simply means universal, in relation to the Christian Church, the Catholic Church would include the "priesthood of all believers", including the believers from protestant and eastern orthodox denominations. Not just the church organization headquarted in Rome, A.K.A. The Roman Catholic Church.

Also the term protestant simply means that we are in protest to certain beliefs held by the Roman Catholic Church, it doesn't mean we believe that they are the boogeyman or that all of them are heretics.

GG

Actually you aren't being 'real world', you are being technical. In the real world if you point at someone that people know is a Baptist Minister and say "oh look, a Catholic" they are going think you are an idiot because that is not even close to the common, every day use for the majority of people.

**Manchu**

Maybe he meant the real (i.e., transcendant) "real world"?

**Ahtman**

No, I think he meant the technical, past, or perhaps even academic use. The language has evolved and so have the way people use them. Probably because of all the conflicts between the 'protestants and Roman Catholics the word doesn't really have the same appeal, or sense of unification when you are trying to kill one another.

**JEB_Stuart**

Manchu wrote:@JEB. Agree. Actually, BXVI's recent appointment for the Archdiocese of LA has greatly unsettled me in this regard.

I have been disturbed with the state of the Church, ie catholic, as a whole in Southern California. The recent announcement of Card. Mahoney's replacement is just another event in a string of incidents that has been needling at my mind and Faith. I am sure you heard of the Episcopal Diocese of LA's recent controversy, and of course the extreme rise in Fundamentalism in the area. This has all served to make me a bit antsy concerning the future role for the Church in SoCal...

**generalgrog**

I think Ahtman has understood me correctly, and I understand his point. Although I think he is ascribing levels of understanding here. People in ministry understand what "catholic" means, while uninformed or understudied layity might not, and therefore will only apply the term "catholic" to describe Roman Catholics. So I believe he is correct, and I also think it's a shame that such disunity exists(in regards to people killing one another).

GG

edit..actually now that I reread both posts, your both right. :-) I was refering to the real world in the sense of my everyday life apart from the internet.

**sebster**

ShumaGorath wrote:As soon as they cart off the pope they're going to have to throw Vladimir Putin, Wen Jiabao, dick cheney, Tony Blair, and pretty much every other foreign leader in the same box.

This is all a moot point and Dawkins is an unbelievable tool.

Thing is, when people on dakka say 'he's the pope and has diplomatic immunity' and Geoffrey Robertson says 'there's limits to diplomatic immunity and those limits might not extend to sort-of-but-not-quite state like the Vatican' I'm inclined to think Mr Robertson might know a bit more about the issue. QC. Internationally recognised human rights lawyer. Had his own tv show for a while. He's a smart dude and he does this for a living, we're people on the internet.

And a world in which Putin became liable for his crimes is a better world than this one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
Shuma wrote:I told you what I was basing them on. I stated earlier in the thread that his logic was poor and that he is not a particularly accomplished scientist. His writing is poor (opinion) he is not a very accomplished scientist (fact).

The part in bold is opinion. I have a funny feeling this thread could develop into:

No it won't.

**JEB_Stuart**

@Sebster: As the head of a state, the Vatican City State, that is recognized by the UN and has relations with nearly every country on the planet, I would say that he has the privilege of diplomatic immunity. At least he will in the UK, especially as he is there to promote a British theologian...

**sebster**

JEB_Stuart wrote:@Sebster: As the head of a state, the Vatican City State, that is recognized by the UN and has relations with nearly every country on the planet, I would say that he has the privilege of diplomatic immunity. At least he will in the UK, especially as he is there to promote a British theologian...

Except it's status as a state is pretty dubious. As an actual state it was extinguished in 1870, only to be reformed as an entity by Mussonlini - could Saudi Arabia declare Mecca a state tomorrow, and see it's officials granted diplomatic immunity? The Vatican occupies .17 of a square mile, and has 900 citizens. It is not recognised by the UN as a state, it was in fact refused membership and instead granted observer status, which allows it to give speaches but do little else.

I don't know the answer the question, I dare say until the issue is seen in the courts no-one will know for certain, but I accept that when internationally renowned lawyers put forward the above I figure they've probably got something close to a case (my point above was a paraphrasing of Robertson's Guardian article that started this whole thing).

Not that it actually matters. Facilitating widespread or systemic child abuse is a crime that can be pursued in the International Criminal Courts, and that court does not recognise diplomatic immunity.

**Manchu**

I think the Vatican's status as a nation state and as a permanent observer at the UN is well-established in international law. This is, for example, why most countries in the world send ambassadors to and receive ambassadors from there. Or maybe all the International Law classes I took in law school were totally wrong. There was a movement to have the Vatican thrown out of the UN called SeeChange but it seems to have fallen to the wayside.

**Squig_herder**

Manchu wrote:I think the Vatican's status as a nation state and as a permanent observer at the UN is well-established in international law.

That become irrelevant if they can get it to the international court, no one is immune from them

**Manchu**

Actually, that court only has jurisdiction over those who recognize its rather narrow jurisdiction. The Holy See happens to be one sovereign nation that does, however, given that it participates in the international legal system in good will. But we still need a crime. All anyone has are baselss--and I mean baseless on their face, if you bother to look into any of it--accusations that are pretty much just petulant personal attacks.

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:I think the Vatican's status as a nation state and as a permanent observer at the UN is well-established in international law. This is, for example, why most countries in the world send ambassadors to and receive ambassadors from there. Or maybe all the International Law classes I took in law school were totally wrong. There was a movement to have the Vatican thrown out of the UN called SeeChange but it seems to have fallen to the wayside.

Being a permanent observer in the UN means they get to contribute speaches and sign some treaties (including the one on the rights of the child, ironically enough). It does not make you a nation state. Many countries send and receive ambassadors, but that has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with actually being a nation state. Do these ambasadors negotiate terms of trade, do they protect the rights of Vatican citizens who have moved to other countries. Do they seek treaties for mutual protection with the 900 citizens of the Vatican?

Or do they hear the political and philosophical views of the Vatican, believing they represent the beliefs of a majority of the Catholic citizenry of their country? Is the Vatican important because of its 900 members, or because of the importance it holds to the billion odd Catholics who are members of other countries?

It's claim as a nation state is not as certain as people have simply assumed in this thread.

**Manchu**

It really, really is quite clear.

Actually, the Vatican does have treaties with Italy dealing with its defense among other things. It has many other treaties with other states regarding the treatment of Catholics in those states.

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:It really, really is quite clear.

No, it isn't. And when there's renowned lawyers in international law arguing it isn't, your statements are really, really irrelevant.

Seriously, dude, it's okay to have an opinion on the issue, you could well be right. But to simply state that you know how a contentious area of international law must be is silly.

Actually, the Vatican does have treaties with Italy dealing with its defense among other things. It has many other treaties with other states regarding the treatment of Catholics in those states.

Treaties on the treatment of the citizens of the other country. Of those citizens, in their country. Because the power and relevance of the Vatican is beyond national borders. Because it doesn't represent the interests of just it's 900 citizens. Which really, really doesn't help it's claim that it is a nation state.

If Saudi Arabia declared Mecca a nation tomorrow, just as Mussolini claimed for the Vatican, would it be?

**dogma**

Manchu wrote:The Holy See happens to be one sovereign nation that does, however, given that it participates in the international legal system in good will.

Neither the Holy See, nor the Vatican are signatories of the Rome Statute. Therefore neither is subject to the International Criminal Court.

Manchu wrote:
But we still need a crime. All anyone has are baselss--and I mean baseless on their face, if you bother to look into any of it--accusations that are pretty much just petulant personal attacks.

The ICC does not have retroactive jurisdiction. Even if there were a crime, it is unlikely that there would be enough significant evidence to prosecute a case under the auspices of 'crimes against humanity'. Moreover, any prosecution would involve the Catholic Church as a whole, not just the current Pope.

**Manchu**

sebster wrote:And when there's renowned lawyers in international law arguing it isn't, your statements are really, really irrelevant.

There are many more renowned lawyers who have no political interest in abusing international law in order to make a statement who acknowledge the sovereignty of the Vatican. Besides them, there are 71 nations who send ambassadors to the Vatican, including three of five permanent security council members, and maintains diplomatic relations with a further 106 nations. When the SeeChange movement worked to have the Vatican removed from its permannet observer status, the UN members voted unanimously to expand the Vatican's status. So you see, I am not being silly when I say that the sovereignty of the Vatican is a really, really well-settled point. Nor am I actually telling you what my opinion is.

**dogma**

I'll take this opportunity to clarify something:

Vatican City is the sovereign territory of the Holy See. It is clearly not a nation-state, as the nearest thing to a nation with which it is associated is not under the authority of the governing body that is the Holy See. Most people will call The Vatican, by convention, a city-state, but even that particular moniker is unsatisfying given the extensive extraterritorial authority of the Holy See.

The difficulty inherent in classifying the amalgamated Vatican City/Holy See is the primary source of consternation for scholars of international law. The main dispute being between those who wish classify the Holy See as the especially influential government of an unusually small territory, and those who wish to consider the Holy See as a sort of NGO that has been granted unusual privileges within its headquarters.

Of course, the easy answer is that the Catholic Church enjoys a unique position by dearth of its historical importance, and attempting to place squarely it into one category or another is bound to miss at least some important elements of the issue.

**Manchu**

Yes, the Vatican City State is a territory that has only existed since 1929 upon the signing of the Lateran Treaty with Italy. That treaty recognizes the soverignty of the Holy See. (I was using them interchangably for the purposes of this thread. Just as one does not need to know about photons to tell night from day, the technicalities did not seem necessary until this well-settled point was problematized.) It is not an NGO in anyone's mind but lobbyists seeking to change the status quo.

**mattyrm**

Orlanth, i will reply more fully when im not on my phone, but basically the point of my 'Taliban' argument is basically that people are brought up to believe something from a young age. Ergo you get 'labour taliban' because some people who have little knowledge (i argue with them in the pub all the time :-) )of politics admit they vote for them because 'my dad wouldnt be happy if i didnt' or 'i always have done'. I conceded that there may be some atheists that are trained in such a way, but the overwhelming majority are not raised to be anti theistic. And Shuma, mate, i know your a very typical internet intellectual, and i can agree with many of the things you said about RD, but really. Dawkins is a gak scientist? The man who wrote The Selfish Gene is a gak scientist? Find me a great one who calls him gak. Please. One of the seminal works in the subject, one of the books that is recommended reading for anyone studying evolutionary biology from Cambridge to Harvard. The man who coined the term MEME, who was invited to give The Farraday Christmas lectures, is a gak scientist, because legendary dakka troll Shuma says so. Even if you were a nobel prize winning researcher i would still humbly disagree and link some things that other great Scientists and professors from world top 100 universitys said about him, but your just a student who likes to try and 'win' ultimately pointless debates on dakkadakka.com. I actually feel sorry for Dawkins, because he is now known merely as an atheist, and his other achievements seem to have been forgotten. But an internet warrior still in college calling a man with his track record a 'gak scientist' is truly laughable.

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:So you see, I am not being silly when I say that the sovereignty of the Vatican is a really, really well-settled point. Nor am I actually telling you what my opinion is.

No, the issue is not settled, it's highly contentious. You have to realise you're just some guy on the internet saying 'this much debated issue is actually really simple and here's the one true answer'.

I'll defer to Dogma on the issue and his very informative post above, and figure I probably should have just left it to him in the first place.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Orlanth, i will reply more fully when im not on my phone, but basically the point of my 'Taliban' argument is basically that people are brought up to believe something from a young age. Ergo you get 'labour taliban' because some people who have little knowledge (i argue with them in the pub all the time :-) )of politics admit they vote for them because 'my dad wouldnt be happy if i didnt' or 'i always have done'. I conceded that there may be some atheists that are trained in such a way, but the overwhelming majority are not raised to be anti theistic.

Do you think assigning the moniker 'taliban' to people who loyally vote for a political party or people who hold other strong views given to them from childhood is all that useful?

Really, if you're not blowing up centuries old Buddhist statues and stoning women for leaving the house unaccompanied I don't think taliban really applies.

**Manchu**

sebster wrote:You have to realise you're just some guy on the internet saying 'this much debated issue is actually really simple and here's the one true answer'.

The "that's just your opinion" tactic doesn't work so well when applied to facts. I really don't see how you're making this out to be my issue and not addressing the countries who send and receive diplomatic missions, the relationship to the UN, and the participation in international law as a treaty signatory. I guess we will have to leave it at that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, one last thing. Maybe read this?

**dogma**

Manchu wrote:
It is not an NGO in anyone's mind but lobbyists seeking to change the status quo.

It also isn't a state. It may be recognized as a sovereign territory, and that may be denoted as a state for the sake of convenience, but the conventional treatment of the Church and its dignitaries differs significantly from that of all other states. Indeed, the Holy See does not even consider itself to be a state.

For completeness' sake: The NGO theory arises from the fact that the only criterion for state-hood which the Holy See does not fulfill is the possession of a permanent population. Since there can be no governance without a population, the Holy See can be consider Non-Governmental. However, that status does not impinge on its sovereignty.

**Manchu**

dogma wrote:It also isn't a state. It may be recognized as a sovereign territory, and that may be denoted as a state for the sake of convenience, but the conventional treatment of the Church and its dignitaries differs significantly from that of all other states. Indeed, the Holy See does not even consider itself to be a state.

The Holy See s referred to as a state by the UN. Whether there is more to the story is without doubt true. That information is not pertinent to sebster's objection about the sovereignty of the Holy See based on the ravings of Geoffery Robertson. The bottom line is that the Holy See has legal personality in international law and sovereignty in the Vatican City State. Whether this arises sui generis or as a practical result of recognition is beside the current point.

For completeness' sake: The NGO theory arises from the fact that the only criterion for state-hood which the Holy See does not fulfill is the possession of a permanent population. Since there can be no governance without a population, the Holy See can be consider Non-Governmental. However, that status does not impinge on its sovereignty.

This argument is erroneous on its face because another of the four requirements of the treaty of Vienna (and the tradition it is based on) is having a stable government capable of carrying out diplomatic relations. The NGO theory is a political position taken up by people who want the Holy See kicked out of the UN, a movement supported by no state.

**sebster**

Manchu wrote:The "that's just your opinion" tactic doesn't work so well when applied to facts.

If I'd made the argument that it was just your opinion then you'd have a point. But I didn't, and I don't know how you contorted this conversation to think that I did.

I really don't see how you're making this out to be my issue and not addressing the countries who send and receive diplomatic missions, the relationship to the UN, and the participation in international law as a treaty signatory. I guess we will have to leave it at that.

I pointed out that it is a very complicated issue where both sides have strong arguments. You keep mentioning diplomats and special observer status as though those two things makes a nation.

Well, one last thing. Maybe read this?

Dude, think about it. Nation states are members of the UN. They get a vote and everything. The Holy See is given special observer status, which as pointed out a whole lot of times in this thread, is not the same as being a member nation. It means they get to debate issues in the UN, which is a greater status than that given to most bodies, but massively less than the power granted to actual nations.

Trying to establish that something is a nation state because it is granted status in the UN that is specifically not equal and notably inferior to the status given to nation states is moon logic.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:That information is not pertinent to sebster's objection about the sovereignty of the Holy See based on the ravings of Geoffery Robertson.

Looks. Ponders.

Alright, I can see this is a waste of time. Good evening all.

**Wrexasaur**

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.

Continued...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-01/take-him-to-court/

...

...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 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. It hinges on the assumption that the Vatican or its metaphysical emanation, the Holy See, is a state. But the Papal States were extinguished by invasion in 1870 and the Vatican was created by fascist Italy in 1929 when Benito Mussolini endowed this tiny enclave—0.17 of a square mile containing 900 Catholic bureaucrats—with “sovereignty in the international field... in conformity with its traditions and the exigencies of its mission in the world.”

The notion that statehood can be created by another country’s unilateral declaration is risible. If it weren’t, Iran could make Qom a state overnight and the U.K. could launch the city of Canterbury on to the international stage by the same process. But it did not take long for Catholic countries to support the pretentions of the Holy See, sending ambassadors and receiving Papal Nuncios in return. Even the U.K. maintains an apostolic mission that, until 2005, was always filled by British Catholics.

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. This has involved the U.N. in blatant discrimination on grounds of religion, as other faiths are unofficially represented, if at all, by NGOs. But it has encouraged the Vatican to claim statehood—and the immunities from liability that attach to heads of state.

...

At the very least I have an incredibly hard time NOT taking what this man is saying seriously. A very educated person on the short of it.