O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

Mostrando postagens com marcador Papa. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Papa. Mostrar todas as postagens

quarta-feira, 11 de junho de 2014

Catolico e Libertario? Pode Sim! - Joel Pinheiro

O Papa parece que anda sendo mal aconselhado. Ou então não aprendeu economia, nem história econômica. Parece flutuar naquela mixórdia de economia da teologia da libertação que não leva a lugar nenhum. Só a mais atrasos na América Latina e em outros lugares.
Essa teologia econômica da Igreja Católica é um atraso mental.
Ainda bem que temos liberais para corrigi-la.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida


LESA-MAJESTADE
0

Católico e Libertário? #PodeSim!



Com a eleição de Francisco ao papado, que trouxe consigo ventos de mudança, vieram também os ventos da teologia da libertação. Francisco está longe de ser um radical dessa ala do pensamento católico, mas é parte dela, e foi nela que teve sua formação. Ela é marcada pela preocupação com a justiça social e com a crítica ao que vê como a causa da pobreza e da desigualdade: o mercado.
Fiel à cartilha, o cardeal Maradiaga, hondurenho muito próximo ao papa, disse num discurso em Washington que Catolicismo e a crença libertária no livre mercado são incompatíveis. Em seu lugar, devemos dar ao Estado mais poder sobre a sociedade e mais recursos, de forma que ele redistribua a riqueza. O libertário, segundo ele, é alguém que não se importa com os pobres. É uma grande infelicidade ver pastores da maior religião do mundo tentando impor a seus fieis uma posição política, qualquer que ela seja. Pior ainda é ver que sua argumentação está cheia de caricaturas.
Maradiaga não é exceção na Igreja. Lembremos, por exemplo, que o papa Paulo VI – em sua encíclica Populorum Progressio – conclamou os países ricos a pagarem mais impostos para ajudar os países pobres. Enquanto houvesse um pobre no mundo, os ricos não deveriam aproveitar sua riqueza.
Não é, contudo, só a esquerda católica que tem problemas com a economia de mercado. Da segunda metade do século 19 para cá, que é quando os papas começaram a publicar encíclicas mais voltadas a questões sociais (encíclicas que, juntas, são a base da chamada “Doutrina Social da Igreja”), as ideias liberais não estiveram em alta. A primeira dessas encíclicas, chamada Rerum Novarum, do papa Leão XIII, é até bem liberal para os padrões de hoje em dia; e mesmo na época marcava uma mudança de rumo do papado, abandonando o reacionarismo radical e tentando dialogar com o mundo moderno. No fim do século 20, João Paulo II deu uma notável guinada liberal ao revalorizar a importância do empreendedorismo e da necessidade de se facilitar a criação e as trocas econômicas.
Cardeal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, de Honduras
Cardeal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, de Honduras
De resto, vemos flertes com o fascismo, reiteradas condenações ao Ocidente capitalista. E sempre, em todos os casos, muita ingenuidade: a crença de que a pobreza – ou a exclusão social – é um mal que deve ser curado com a redistribuição, com leis pesadas, com o Estado intermediando as relações econômicas, e com muita condenação aos ricos, outra tradição do pensamento católico. A crítica de D. Maradiaga, embora inspirada pela Teologia da Libertação, tem raízes antigas, até milenares.
“Todas as riquezas vêm da iniquidade, e a menos que um perca, outro não pode ganhar. Portanto me parece verdadeira a opinião comum de que o homem rico ou é injusto, ou é herdeiro de um injusto.” Quem o disse? Marx? Engels? Guevara? Nada. A frase é de S. Jerônimo, santo do século 4. Só que uma opinião que é compreensível no século 4, muito antes dos homens sonharem em fazer ciência econômica, não é desculpável hoje em dia…
Se D. Maradiaga tivesse se preocupado em estudar, saberia que os libertários se interessam sim pelo bem dos pobres, e que não, não propõem a caridade privada como grande solução da pobreza. Propõem, isso sim, um caminho oposto ao dele. O caminho para a prosperidade não é o de tirar de quem produz e dar a quem não produz, e sim o de dar a quem não produz as condições institucionais para que possa produzir. Os pobres não são uma massa inerte de mãos estendidas esperando comida do céu; são seres humanos plenamente capazes de produzir (aliás, já produzem em alguma medida) e que precisam de um ambiente que favoreça sua ambição e facilite sua ascensão.
Compare a riqueza dos EUA, um país que, ainda que de forma bem imperfeita, desenvolveu-se com base na livre iniciativa, e a pobreza de uma Honduras, país que amarga sob um Estado pesado e continua na miséria (ao contrário de vizinhos mais liberais da América Central). O discurso mais enfático de ajuda aos pobres tem sido muito bom em perpetuar a pobreza. Onde se ouve mais falar em justiça social: no Mercosul ou na Aliança do Pacífico? E qual deles tem tido mais sucesso no combate à pobreza?
Apesar das notas antiliberais, existe todo um outro lado para a tradição de pensamento católica. Aliás, falar em “tradição de pensamento católica” assim, no singular, é omitir a enorme variedade que se esconde sob ela. Especialmente a partir da Idade Média, essa tradição originou também diversos conceitos importantes até hoje no pensamento liberal. Foi o pensamento católico medieval que reabilitou a figura do comerciante e justificou seu lucro, malvistos na Antiguidade.
Ele cometeu um erro gritante: a condenação absoluta dos juros; mas mesmo esse erro deu origem a discussões que foram importantes para clarear diferenças importantes: juro é diferente de remuneração por lucros cessantes, de remuneração do risco, do lucro de investimento, etc. Foram os escolásticos católicos da Idade Média os primeiros a formular os rudimentos do que viria a ser a ciência econômica: o entendimento claro, por exemplo, de que tabelar preços durante um período de escassez apenas piora a escassez, pode ser encontrado já no século 13. Foram eles também que solidificaram a ideia de que o preço justo é o preço definido pelo mercado num determinado lugar e sob determinadas circunstâncias, e que portanto, está sujeito a mudanças se as circunstâncias mudarem. Por fim, algumas figuras da teologia moral medieval foram as primeiras a se interessar pela figura do empreendedor, e a pensar as virtudes que ele requer.
Preços, lucros, juros, câmbio, direitos, os limites do poder real, a propriedade privada; tudo foi objeto de estudo de teólogos, e muitos deles chegaram a conclusões razoavelmente liberais. No campo do Direito, acadêmicos da Escola de Salamanca, no auge do Império espanhol, declaravam que a Coroa não tinha o direito de desapropriar e escravizar os indígenas no Novo Mundo; conclusão que obviamente não foi seguida, mas que permanece como um motivo de orgulho. Outro autor da época, Juan de Mariana, concluiu que qualquer súdito podia matar uma autoridade que praticasse impostos abusivos…
Mais tarde, no século 18, autores católicos na França e na Irlanda ajudaram a desenvolver a ciência econômica que começava a nascer. No século 19, um católico liberal como Fredéric Bastiat via na ordem do mercado uma harmonia divina, e o Lorde Acton buscava conciliar sua fé com um mundo aberto e cosmopolita. A tradição católica conta com muitas potencialidades liberais.
No nível da alta hierarquia, contudo, essas potencialidades foram, via de regra, ignoradas, e vemos quase sempre a defesa de uma ordem iliberal. A Igreja adotou uma postura paternalista para com suas “ovelhas”, querendo resolver tudo em reuniões de chefes de Estado, impondo ao povo suas decisões. Era assim para defender o Antigo Regime, e continua sendo assim para defender a economia quase socialista. Bento XVI chegou a defender a criação de uma autoridade mundial para regular as sociedades. Há também, decerto, a percepção de que uma visão econômica mais de esquerda pega bem para a imagem da instituição, tão desgastada em outras frentes.
Não é de hoje que membros importantes da Igreja opinam sobre questões econômicas e buscam fechar questões polêmicas, ainda que de forma esparsa. Basta lembrar que a Igreja condenou, por séculos, toda e qualquer forma de cobrança de juros. Até o século 18 há papas fulminando contra os males da usura. Como esse exemplo atesta, ela errou feio no passado, e pode errar no futuro.
É perfeitamente natural que a Igreja queira guiar seus fieis em questões econômicas e sociais, e não se espera de papas tratados com grande profundidade ou rigor; não é o papel deles. O problema é pegar essas manifestações – guiamentos para um grande público pouco formado – e pretender que elas sejam definitivas para quem se interessa pelo tema; daí é só ridículo. Sejamos claros: todas as encíclicas papais sobre questões sociais só têm a importância que têm porque foram escritas por papas; consideradas em si mesmas não têm nenhuma grande contribuição ao conhecimento. Querer limitar o pensamento social católico às opiniões expressas nessas encíclicas é selar o certificado de mediocridade a qualquer tentativa de contribuição católica a essas discussões.
Católico pode ser libertário; diversos já são e o foram. Alguns membros do alto clero podem chiar (não todos! Há variedade de pensamento também na Cúria), mas em questões econômicas e políticas a autoridade não importa. Se a liberdade é ou não é boa para os pobres, não são as credenciais de um cardeal, ou mesmo de um papa, que decidirão.
Joel Pinheiro

Joel Pinheiro é libertário de boa estirpe, anarquista de coração e algum dia ainda será filósofo. Assina a coluna Lesa-Majestade.

quinta-feira, 15 de julho de 2010

Chavez contra o Papa: uma briga de cachorros grandes...

Sinto pelos cachorros, que não deveriam estar envolvidos num conflito desse tipo, mas a comparação se alinha com um dito popular, que pelo menos num dos casos é totalmente pertinente...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

CHÁVEZ PIDE REVISAR CONVENIO CON EL VATICANO
El Nuevo Herald
Managua 14 de julio 2010

El presidente Hugo Chávez pidió el miércoles "revisar" el convenio que tiene el gobierno venezolano con el Vaticano, que le da prioridad a la Iglesia católica sobre el resto de las iglesias, y afirmó que el Papa "no es ningún embajador de Cristo en la tierra".

En un nuevo capítulo de los roces que mantiene Chávez desde hace una semana con las autoridades de la Iglesia católica, el mandatario instó a su canciller Nicolás Maduro, en un acto en un hotel capitalino, a que "revise con un equipo de expertos...el convenio que tiene el Estado venezolano con el Vaticano"

"Vamos a estudiar cual es el convenio... con el Estado Vaticano lo cual le da a la Iglesia católica aquí un privilegio sobre otras iglesias. Resulta que ésto es un estado seglar...", agregó el gobernante.

Chávez sostuvo que luego de la revisión del convenio "habrá que dirigirse al Estado del Vaticano" porque "la sangre llegó al río" ante el comunicado que emitieron a inicios de semana los obispos venezolanos en el que expresaron preocupación por el establecimiento en el país de un "Estado socialista" de corte cubano.

"Bájense de esa nube, cavernícolas", dijo Chávez dirigiéndose a los obispos a los que señaló de tratar de abrogarse el "papel de Estado que no les corresponde" por denunciar que son violatorias de la Constitución las leyes que ha impulsado recientemente el gobierno y la Asamblea Nacional para establecer en el país modelo socialista.

"Se debe exhortar a los obispos a que se quiten la sotana, detrás de la cual se esconden cobardemente para tratar de manipular a un pueblo que ya no les cree para nada y salgan a la batalla", acotó.

El gobernante aseguró que los obispos están aliados con los opositores, y advirtió que "nosotros lo vamos a barrer el 26 de septiembre" en las elecciones de diputados.

Chávez también se refirió al Papa afirmando que lo reconocía como "jefe de Estado", pero dijo que "no es ningún embajador de Cristo en la tierra como ellos dicen, por el amor de Dios. Qué cosa es ésa: 'embajador de Cristo'. Cristo no necesita embajador, Cristo está en el pueblo y los que luchamos por la justicia y la liberación de los humildes".

El gobernante fustigó con dureza al cardenal Jorge Urosa Savino señalando que es "cien veces peor que aquél (el fallecido cardenal Ignacio Velasco). Este es de la extrema derecha fascista, del Opus Dei, y del opus no se qué, del opus seréis, es un oligarca".

Chávez acusó a Velasco, quien murió en el 2003, de apoyar el fallido golpe de abril del 2002.

La Conferencia Episcopal Venezolana (CEV) expresó el pasado lunes en un comunicado preocupación por el "clima de violencia y corrupción que reina en muchas esferas de la vida del país", e indicó que "la polarización ideológico-política de diversos actores no contribuye a la creación de un ambiente favorable" de cara a los comicios legislativos.

Los obispos afirmaron que "el pueblo desea vivir en democracia, en estado de derecho, con participación real de todos, en un clima de justicia social y libertad. Así lo decidió en el referendo del 2 de diciembre de 2007. Por eso es absolutamente inaceptable la imposición de un 'Estado socialista' que se inspira en el régimen comunista cubano y se ha venido concretando a través de leyes y hechos que desconocen la voluntad popular y la Constitución".

Las tensiones entre el gobierno y las autoridades eclesiásticas se agitaron a raíz de una declaración que emitió a finales del mes pasado Urosa Savino en la que manifestó inquietud porque el país estaba avanzando hacia un "Estado socialista" de corte "marxista-comunista".

Desde que asumió su cargo en 1999, Chávez ha mantenido tirantes relaciones con las autoridades locales de la Iglesia católica a las que ha acusado darle la espalda a los pobres y ponerse del lado de la "oligarquía", a la que considera empeñada en derrocarlo.

La CEV ha emitido en los últimos años duros mensajes contra Chávez al que le ha exigido el respeto a los valores democráticos, el combate a la corrupción, y la liberación de algunos opositores que son considerados "presos políticos".

De acuerdo a las principales encuestadoras locales, la cúpula eclesiástica tiene una alta credibilidad en el país, donde más de la mitad de sus 28 millones de habitantes profesa la religión católica.

sexta-feira, 28 de maio de 2010

Epa!: Amantes Unidas Jamais Serao Vencidas? (mesmo contra o papa?)

Sem comentários...
PS: a carta das senhoras dos padres, ou amantes (whatever), pode ser lida num site inglês chamado "Alugue um Padre" (no kidding), mas eu já a transcrevi para os mais curiosos in fine...

Des maîtresses de prêtres catholiques écrivent au pape
Le Monde, 28.05.2010

Des dizaines d'Italiennes, ayant eu des relations avec des prêtres catholiques, ont écrit une lettre ouverte au pape pour lui demander d'abolir la règle du célibat des prêtres, rapporte The Guardian. Elles estiment qu'un prêtre "a besoin de vivre avec ses semblables, de faire l'expérience de ses sentiments, d'aimer et d'être aimé".

Cette question a été à l'ordre du jour de l'agenda du Vatican en mars quand un conseiller de Benoît XVI, le cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archevêque de Vienne, a déclaré que l'abolition de la règle du célibat pourrait permettre de limiter les abus sexuels. Une suggestion qu'il a retirée précipitamment après que Benoît XVI a rappelé son attachement au "principe sacré du célibat".

Les auteures de la lettre ont décidé de prendre la parole en réponse à cette réplique du pape. Elles estiment que Benoït XVI affirme "le caractère sacré de quelque chose qui ne l'est pas" et qui a été inventé par l'homme. Il existe en effet plusieurs exemples de prêtres mariés dans les premiers siècles du christianisme.

Selon une des signataires, Stefania Salomone, 42 ans, la lettre a été signée par près de quarante femmes. Le sujet étant extrêmement sensible, seules trois ont accepté de dévoiler leur nom.

En savoir plus :
- la lettre a d'abord été publiée par le journal en ligne chrétien Il Dialogo. Lire une version en anglais sur le blog Rent a priest.

================

The Priests' Women Speak Out
Rent a Priest
Tuesday, May 18, 2010

This is an open letter from a group of Italian women who are involved with priests to the Pope about celibacy. The letter was first published in Italian on Il Dialogo on March 28, 2010. It has recently been translated into Spanish and posted on Atrio. We now bring it to you in English.

This letter is signed by Antonella Carisio, Maria Grazia Filippucci, Stefania Salomone … together with others … and in the name of all who are suffering because of this unjust law.

The starting point is the news a few days ago, one of many statements following a real explosion of pedophilia scandals in the ranks of the clergy.

THE POPE: Celibacy is a Sacred Value

"The horizon of the ontological belonging to God also constitutes the proper framework for understanding and reaffirming, in our day too, the value of sacred celibacy which in the Latin Church is a charism required for Sacred Orders and is held in very great consideration in the Eastern Churches," said the Pontiff to the Conference on "Faithfulness of Christ, Faithfulness of the Priest".

"It is an authentic prophecy of the Kingdom, a sign of consecration with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord", the expression of their gift of self to God and to others. The priest's vocation is thus most exalted and remains a great mystery, even to us who have received it as a gift. Our limitations and weaknesses must prompt us to live out and preserve with deep faith this precious gift with which Christ has configured us to him, making us sharers in his saving Mission."

To Pope Benedict XVI:

This is written by a group of women from all parts of Italy, who have lived or are still living in a relationship with a priest or religious. We are used to living in anonymity those few moments the priest manages to give us and we live daily with the doubts, fears and insecurities of our men, supplementing their affective deficiency and suffering the consequences of obligatory celibacy.

Ours is a voice that can no longer continue to be ignored, from the moment we heard the reaffirmation of the sacredness of what is not sacred in the least, of a law that is being maintained without addressing the fundamental rights of people. The contempt with which they have attempted for centuries and in recent statements to silence the cry of men and women who have suffered in the already tattered shroud of mandatory celibacy hurts us.

We are trying to reaffirm -- although many Christians already know it -- that this discipline has nothing to do either with the Scriptures in general, or with the Gospels in particular, or with Jesus, who never spoke about it.

Quite the contrary. As far as we know, He liked to surround Himself with disciples, almost all married, and women. You would say to us that Jesus also lived as a bachelor and the priest is simply matching Him with his choice. A choice is good. But a rule can never be a choice, if not forcing its meaning. If, moreover, it is defined as a charism, it can not therefore be imposed or required, much less by the Lord, who wants us to be free, because love is freedom, always.

Is it therefore reasonable to assume that He would intend to deny certain expressions of love and freedom to some of His disciples?

The reasons that, over time, prompted the church hierarchy to introduce this discipline in the canonical legal system itself are commonly known: economic interest and expediency. Then, over the centuries, everything has been marinated in a certain amount of misogyny and hostility toward the body, psychological drives and its primary needs.

It is therefore a "human" law in the broadest sense of the term. And we must start from this evidence, to question whether, as with all human laws, in a certain historical moment, it might not be necessary to rethink and modify it or even, as we would like, to eliminate it altogether.

To do this, much humility, much courage is needed to disengage from the logic of power to come down with sincerity to the world of men to which, like it or not, the priest also belongs.

We quote from Eugen Drewermann (“Kleriker: Psychogramm eines Ideals”, 1989),:

"According to theological ideology the persona of the individual cleric looks like a bucket of water: it is necessary to fully empty its contents to fill it to the brim again with everything that seems desirable to ecclesiastical superiors. In this way the entire sphere of human feelings is neutralized in favor of the decisions of power. Of all the range of possible human relationships, only one type of relationship survives: the one of order and submission, the ritual of master and servant, the abstraction and reduction of life to the formalism of observance of certain instructions."

It is not a matter of having more time to devote to others, as the most repeated of the innumerable expressions they use that affirm that the cleric should not and cannot have a female companion states, rather a rejection of the idea that he can enjoy a more intimate and personal presence, even friendships themselves.

In fact, Drewermann continues:

"The identification required by the professional role does not allow him to live as a person, and therefore he has no choice but to feign human warmth, emotional closeness, pastoral understanding, empathy, simulating instead of living in authentic way."

According to this institutionalized view, the priest fulfills himself through his ministry, through the holy orders, only as a single person and for a lifetime. But the presumably free decision of a young man, enthusiastic about the proposal he thinks he has received does not imply that his deep attachment to the message of Jesus can not grow, mature, change and even better express itself, to a certain point, through a married priesthood. This is simply what happens, what cannot be foreseen or fully evaluated.

A choice of this type can not be immutable, and it is neither a betrayal, much less a failing or an infraction, because love is not against love. And the priest, like any human being, needs to live with his fellow beings, to have feelings, to love and be loved and to face the other deeply, something which he is hardly willing to do for fear of being exposed to danger.

Behind the curtain of what is said and unsaid, that is what we are experiencing. And it's as if the church system, with its rules, manages to imprison the healthiest part of us all.

What happens, in fact, if a priest falls in love? He can choose:

1. Sacrifice his own needs and feelings, as well as the woman's, for a "greater good" (what?) 2. Live out the relationship in hiding, with the help and complicity of the superiors themselves sometimes; it is sufficient that it does not come to be known and does not leave traces (ie, children) 3. Throw away the cassock, the usual expression that defines the choice of someone who can't take it any more, that is to say, a traitor. Each of these options causes great pain to the people involved who, things going as they do, have much to lose.

And what are the woman's options?

1. Sacrifice her own needs and feelings in favor of "a greater good" (in this case, the good of the priest) 2. Live out the relationship in secret, spending the rest of her life waiting for the priest to be able to spend a pinch of time with her, stolen moments, sacrificing the dream of a relationship with a "normal" man. 3. Bear the burden of being the one who forced the priest to "throw away the cassock", in addition to sharing the burden of his alleged "failure." A priest who leaves is considered to be "the one who failed to go ahead with the great renunciation required," and is therefore somewhat cast aside. And this is a difficult thing to bear, for one who believes he is "a chosen one, someone who received a special call," an Alter Christus, who with only a gesture of consecrated hands, transforms the nature of things ... who forgives, who saves!

Is it possible to give up all that? And for what?

For the normal life of a couple, that sounds like a trivial matter compared to the powers the "staff member of God" can wield through holy orders.

And yet, one of the most recurring statements of priests to their "companions", sums it up in a few words: "I need you in order to be who I am", that is, a priest.

Don't be shocked, Your Holiness! In order to become effective witnesses to the need for love, they need to embody it and experience it fully, in the way their nature demands it. Is it a sick nature? A transgressing one?

If understood, this expression shows the urgency of also being part of a world of two, of being able to exercise that fundamental natural right that the institutional church at least talks about in solemn Latin encyclicals, clearly reserved only for lay people and denied to the clergy, who become so supernatural, so separated from everyone else, that they are unable even to distinguish what's around them.

But is it possible that you are not able to see that the priest is a painfully lonely being? He has a lot of things to do, that fill his day and empty his heart. Sometimes he doesn't even realize it, caught up as he is with the liturgies and duties of his job. And it may happen that among his acquaintances there is a person, someone special who seems, at first sight, specifically made to warm his heart, completing and enriching the ministry too. And this is simply what happens frequently.

But the church discipline tells him: "No, you have been chosen for something much greater." And he feels guilty, because he is unable to imagine anything greater than what he is experiencing. But he trusts the obedience he promised, thinking that it represents the will of God, His plan for him and those like him. The celibate hero returns to the stage of an institution that designed it like this and has already prepared a promotion in exchange for the necessary separation.

And all this destruction in the name of what love?

The one that makes us hide, the one that makes us renounce, the one that hurts us. That is not the love of the Father. Let us finally quote a conclusion from Drewermann:

"The God that Jesus spoke about wants precisely what the Catholic Church today fears more than anything: free, happy and mature human life, which is not born of anguish, but of obedient trust and which is free from the limitations of the tyranny of a traditional theology that prefers to seek the truth of God in sacred scripture rather than in the sanctity of human life."

==============

Comentando:
Se a Igreja tiver de distribuir heranças, pensões, bolsas de estudo, auxílio-mamadeira, auxílio-creche e ainda pagar a universidade dos bambini, ela vai ficar um pouco mais pobre... Aliás, ela ficou rica assim mesmo: obrigando os pobres padrecos a viver no celibato (mas não na inocência como provam todos esses casos de filhos, pedofilia, homossexualismo, sodomia, zoologia, botânica, e sabe-se lá o que mais...)

sexta-feira, 30 de abril de 2010

2107) O papa nao está acima da lei - Christopher Hitchens

Bring the Pope to Justice
Christopher Hitchens
Newsweek, Apr 23, 2010

Popes and their problems through the centuries

Detain or subpoena the pope for questioning in the child-rape scandal? You must be joking! All right then, try the only alternative formulation: declare the pope to be above and beyond all local and international laws, and immune when it comes to his personal and institutional responsibility for sheltering criminals. The joke there would be on us.

The case for bringing the head of the Catholic hierarchy within the orbit of law is easily enough made. All it involves is the ability to look at a naked emperor and ask the question "Why?" Mentally remove his papal vestments and imagine him in a suit, and Joseph Ratzinger becomes just a Bavarian bureaucrat who has failed in the only task he was ever set-that of damage control. The question started small. In 2002, I happened to be on Hardball With Chris Matthews, discussing what the then attorney general of
Massachusetts, Thomas Reilly, had termed a massive cover-up by the church of crimes against children by more than a thousand priests. I asked, why is the man who is prima facie responsible, Cardinal Bernard Law, not being questioned by the forces of law and order? Why is the church allowed to be judge in its own case and enabled in effect to run private courts where gross and evil offenders end up being "forgiven"? This point must have hung in the air a bit, and perhaps lodged in Cardinal Law's own mind, because in December of that year he left Boston just hours before state troopers
arrived with a subpoena seeking his grand-jury testimony. Where did he go? To Rome, where he later voted in the election of Pope Benedict XVI and now presides over the beautiful church of Santa Maria Maggiore, as well as several Vatican subcommittees.

In my submission, the current scandal passed the point of no return when the Vatican officially became a hideout for a man who was little better than a fugitive from justice. By sheltering such a salient offender at its very heart, the Vatican had invited the metastasis of the horror into its bosom and thence to its very head. It is obvious that Cardinal Law could not have made his escape or been given asylum without the approval of the then pontiff and of his most trusted deputy in the matter of child-rape damage control, then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

Developments since that time have appalled even the most diehard papal apologists by their rapidity and scale. Not only do we have the letter that Cardinal Ratzinger sent to all Catholic bishops, enjoining them sternly to refer rape and molestation cases exclusively to his office. That would be bad enough in itself, since any person having knowledge of such a crime is legally obliged to report it to the police. But now, from Munich and Madison, Wis., and Oakland, come reports of the protection or indulgence of
pederasts occurring on the pope's own watch, either during his period as bishop or his time as chief Vatican official for the defusing of the crisis.
His apologists have done their best, but their Holy Father seems consistently to have been lenient or negligent with the criminals while reserving his severity only for those who complained about them.

As this became horribly obvious, I telephoned a distinguished human-rights counsel in London, Geoffrey Robertson, and asked him if the law was powerless to intervene. Not at all, was his calm reply. If His Holiness tries to travel outside his own territory-as he proposes to travel to Britain in the fall-there is no more reason for him to feel safe than there was for the once magnificently uniformed General Pinochet, who had passed a Chilean law that he thought would guarantee his own immunity, but who was visited by British bobbies all the same. As I am writing this, plaintiffs are coming forward and strategies being readied (on both sides, since the Vatican itself scents the danger). In Kentucky, a suit is before the courts seeking the testimony of the pope himself. In Britain, it is being proposed that any one of the numberless possible plaintiffs might privately serve the pope with a writ if he shows his face. Also being considered are two international approaches, one to the European Court of Human Rights and another to the International Criminal Court. The ICC-which has already this year overruled immunity and indicted the gruesome president of Sudan-can be asked to rule on "crimes against humanity"; a legal definition that happens to include any consistent pattern of rape, or exploitation of children, that has been endorsed by any government.

In Kentucky, the pope's lawyers have already signaled their intention to contest any such initiative by invoking "sovereign immunity," since His Holiness is also an alleged head of state. One wonders if sincere Catholics really desire to take refuge in this formulation. The so-called Vatican City, a political nonentity covering about 0.17 square miles of Rome, was created by Benito Mussolini in 1929 as part of his sweetheart deal between fascism and the papacy. It is the last survival of the political architecture of the Axis powers. Its bogus claim to statehood is now being
used to give asylum to men like Cardinal Law.

In this instance the church damns itself both ways. It invites our challenge-this is where the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights becomes relevant-to its standing as a state. And it calls attention to the repellent origins of that same state. Currently the Holy See has it both ways. For example, it is exempt from the annual State Department Human Rights Report precisely because it is not considered a state. (It maintains only observer status at the United Nations.) So, if it now does want to claim full statehood, it follows that it should receive the full attention
of the State Department for its "lay" policies, and, for that matter, the full attention of the Justice Department as well. (First order of business-why on earth are we not demanding the extradition of Cardinal Law?
And why is this grave matter being left to private individuals to pursue?)

It is very difficult to resist the conclusion that this pope does not call for a serious investigation, or demand the removal of those responsible for a consistent pattern of child rape and its concealment, because to do so would be to imply the call for his own indictment. But meanwhile why are we expected to watch passively or wonder idly why the church does not clean its own filthy stable? A case in point: in 2001 Cardinal Castrillón of Colombia wrote from the Vatican to congratulate a French bishop who had risked jail rather than report an especially vicious rapist priest. Castrillón was invited this week to conduct a lavish Latin mass in Washington. The invitation was rightly withdrawn after a storm of outrage, but nobody asked why the cardinal could not be held as an accessory to an official Vatican policy that has exposed thousands of American children to rapists and sadists.

Only this past March did the church shamefacedly and reluctantly agree that all child rapists should now be handed over to the civil authorities. Thanks a lot. That was a clear admission that gross illegality, and of the nastiest kind, has been its practice up until now. Euphemisms about sin and repentance are useless. This is a question of crime-organized crime, by the way-and therefore of punishment. Or perhaps you would rather see the shade of Mussolini thrown protectively over the Vicar of Christ? The ancient Roman symbol of the fish is rotting-and rotting from the head.

Hitchens, a NEWSWEEK contributor, is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great.