I have discovered something fairly remarkable. Atheists – or at least neo-atheists – tend to lie. Everytime I pick up some neo-atheist tract, there are always lies in it.
As I noted in an earlier post, a prominent BBC documentary on atheism – a very pro-atheist documentary – contained a string of quotes from Presidents of the United States. Those quotes revealed the presidents as being atheists or near atheists, or at least haters of religion. There was only one problem. None of the quotes were true; no President uttered them.
It’s a pretty pathetic thing to be an atheist when you have to lie and make things up to make your point.
Now, in the current flap over child abuse in Germany and Ireland, the Washington Post’s atheist takes to lying again:
Last week, a psychiatrist who treated a priest accused of child molestation under the watch of then-archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, revealed that he had warned archdiocesan officials in writing that the priest in question should never again be allowed to work with children. The priest was, however, assigned to another parish immediately and was finally convicted in 1986 by civil courts of molesting more boys.
Note how she wants you to believe that this man was “under the watch” of Ratzinger. But of course, this is not what happened.
Here are the facts:
A priest from another archdiocese sought permission to come to Munich for treatment. According to the accounts I have heard, Ratzinger may not have even known what the treatment was for. [UPDATE: according to the most recent believable source, he and the church council did know the reason the priest was there] He merely approved a rather standard request to allow the priest to come into his diocese and reside there during his treatment.
After his treatment was finished, the vicar general of the Archdiocese – not Ratzinger – decided to let the offender back into a parish, without restrictions.[UPDATE: it appears now that the Vicar General did not re-assign him to a church until seven months after Ratzinger had left Munich and gone to Rome to be head of the CDF)
In 1986, after Ratzinger was long gone (he had gone to the Vatican in late 1981), the priest abused a kid, and was charged criminally. Just to show you how little the authorities thought of this crime, they sentenced him to 18 months and suspended the sentence. Now that is the real outrage.
But note how cleverly our little atheist twists things and tries hard to get you to believe that Ratzinger was responsible for all of this. Note how the phrase “under the watch” is carefully used to mislead you. Well, of course the archdiocese is under his watch, but of course no man can know everything that is going on, and Ratzinger had no idea that the guy was released without restrictions, and was long gone by the time the priest offended again.
Yet, she wants you to believe that he was deeply involved, and that he ignored the report of the psychiatrist.
Isn’t it interesting how atheists lie so much?
But the next paragraph says:
One of Benedict’s former deputies took responsibility for the decision to reassign the priest to another parish and said the future pope never knew about the psychiatrist’s recommendation. That is irrelevant. In an organization with as clear-cut a hierarchy as the Catholic Church, if an archbishop doesn’t know what’s going on in his diocese, he doesn’t want to know.
How could it be irrelevant that the pope never knew of the things that happened? Is this atheist rationalism at its finest? When faced with obvious facts that demolish her prejudices what happens? She goes irrational, and says the most relevant facts in the world are irrelevant. Why? Because she claims Catholic archbishops always have perfect knowledge of everything that happens. Even after they have moved to Rome.
This is just evil bigotry.