On clerical child sex abuse, arresting the Pope, and skepticism

SKEPTICISM [source: No Answers in Genesis]

In case anyone was wondering, the reason why I haven’t made a post yet regarding the whole “arrest the Pope” affair and the attitude(s) and/or actions that skeptics (and atheists, and etc.) ought to adopt in the face of the Catholic Church’s systematic refusal to admit to its horrible policy of sheltering child-molesting priests, is simply due to a fair lack of interest in this matter. Meaning that, while I do believe (of course) that priests guilty of sexually abusing the children in their care ought to have their day in court and then rightfully be thrown in jail and that the Church officials who are behind the massive cover-up ought to follow suit, it’s simply too unlikely, if not even downright ridiculous, to reasonably expect that anyone in the upper hierarchy – much less the Pope himself – will be marched off to jail as a result of this scandal. It’s more of a pipe dream than anything else in the current state of affairs, in my opinion. As a result, I didn’t bother to put together any real posting on the matter as I expect that this will all (most unfortunately) peter out after a while.

However, a comment by Skepdude on my recent post defending Phil Plait’s own (lengthy and excellent) post on this very matter drew this response from me, and I figured it would be well suited to serve as my own (sort of) post on my views and standpoint regarding skeptics’ role in this affair. The full thing, below.

Indeed, lots has been said and it can be a bit confusing to get a clear picture of a general consensus amongst skeptics, but this:

[…] the most common argument I've heard is that it is a legal issue not a skeptical one; thus skeptics need not get involved.

… is something that’s particularly disputed. There is much to be said, and I certainly cannot speak for anyone else, but here’s where I stand, generally speaking:

A) This is not a skeptical issue in itself, in that this case – child-molesting priests, an organization moving to cover its ass, and a leader of said organization trying to cover his own ass – isn’t about claims about the supernatural or anything like that. It’s a moral issue, a social one and a criminal one, not a supernatural, paranormal or pseudoscientific one. The fact that the ones behind these acts and subsequent cover-up (the dirty priests, the Pope, etc.) are peddlers of superstitious nonsense is irrelevant to this specific issue, in my opinion. Their belief in God and their propagation of religious belief is not what made them abuse these children, and it should not be treated as such, and should not be a primary (or even secondary, or tertiary, or …) reason for skeptics’ involvement.

B) The fact that, as I said in A), this isn’t a skeptical issue, is no reason for skeptics not to get involved. The thing is, skeptics are humans, moral people with ethics and judgment, and it’s in this capacity that we ought to go after the Pope, if not the entire filthy organization. Not as skeptics, but as mere moral, compassionate and outraged humans.

Skeptics should no more abstain from judgment or action regarding this case than, say, theists should abstain from judgment or action if a skeptic committed a horrible crime such as child sex abuse. It’s the same basic principal; the fact that the purported criminals are adherents to a worldview that we detest and fight against is quite immaterial.

Thoughts? Feedback? Flaming? (Hope not?)