Arrest the Pope!

No, not on suspicion of being the antichrist. For his role in the cover up of child abuse.

I am not a lawyer so I cannot go into this story in the detail someone with a legal background could. That said, I thought it raised a number of interesting issues so I couldn’t avoid blogging on it.

It was revealed back in April that arch atheists Richard Dawkins (“Darwin’s Rockville”) and Christopher Hitchens (celebrated English/American author and journalist who, incidentally, was recently diagnosed with cancer) would try to use the legal principle of universal jurisdiction to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Great Britain.

Dawkins and Hitchens hoped to use the same principle which saw Chilean dictator General Pinochet arrested when he visited the UK in 1998. More recently former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni cancelled a visit to the UK after a warrant for her arrest for alleged crimes in Gaza was issued.

Following that incident the then Labour Government moved to change the law. There was allegedly reluctance on the part of the Justice Department but, as the Jewish Chronicle reported in January, then Justice Secretary Jack Straw reacted angrily to such suggestions:

Mr Straw is understood to be furious at the suggestion that he has been dragging his heels over the issue. He told the JC: “I am keen to resolve this issue and am urgently discussing it with colleagues across government. We hope to come forward with proposals very soon.”

But despite the Jewish Chronicle reporting on 14^th January that the law would be changed within the week only now, six months later and after a change of government, do things seem to be moving in Whitehall - something which Sky News has linked directly to the Pope’s visit.

Undoubtedly, an attempt to arrest the Bishop of Rome for crimes against humanity during his State visit to the UK would prove a major embarrassment to the Government as Benedict XVI plans to visit following an official invitation issued in February 2009 by then Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

It may seem foolish to suggest that the Pope seriously faces a danger of arrest even if the law remains unchanged. However, let’s not forget the Pinochet and Livni examples referred to earlier. While they were hardly as famous as the Pope they were, nonetheless, significant individuals in their home countries and both stories caused major stirs overseas.

Added to that, whatever one thinks of Dawkins and Hitchens few would accuse them of being imbeciles, at least not in a worldly sense, so they are unlikely to have said something which they knew would be easily dismissed by a legal expert.

Indeed, in an interview Hitchens gave to MSNBC in April he said:

“I think we are going to approach an international criminal court first because it doesn’t particularly matter whether the Pope wants to travel or not. I think he could probably be served where he is.”

Not being a legal expert I don’t feel able to comment on this but it would appear that on past form there is a good chance Hitchens is right. The Vatican had argued that the Pope had diplomatic immunity but there seems at the very least to be a question mark over this.

Hitchens’s interview is also interesting for the insight it gives one into the possible charges which could be brought against the Pope:

“If you look at the record now in Ireland, in Germany where it’s getting worse everyday, the terrible three cases involving the Pope himself – the ones in Munich, the deaf and dumb school in Wisconsin. Two hundred deaf and dumb children and the Pope says let the poor man go. He’s old now. He’s ill. Even though the diocese wants him gone. Then this completely depraved sadist Father Kiesle in Oakland and the Pope’s name is on the letter saying let this guy go too. Give him a break he’s too young.”

The specific cases which Hichens cites (links to articles about them are provided in the passage quoted above) certainly do appear to raise serious questions about the conduct of Ratzinger, enough indeed, many would argue to justify his arrest.

I think that most people will share my belief that no one should be above the law and I certainly wouldn’t shed any tears were the Pope to be called to account for his role in Rome’s symptomatic and longstanding cover up of child abuse by clerics.

However, the case does raise an interesting dilemma for an evangelical Protestant such as myself. While I oppose the Papacy I have little doubt that Dawkins and Hitchens are not motivated solely by a desire to bring the Pope to account for his role in covering up sex abuse scandals. I have no doubt that they see it as an opportunity to highlight the inconstancy between what the world sees as Christianity and common decency.

Their mission in this, as in so much of what they do, is to spread the gospel of atheism rather than promote the truth.

The case highlights a difficulty for those who wish to demonstrate against the Pope’s visit to the UK from a traditional Protestant perspective. They run the risk of their protest being lost due to the opposition emanating from various pressure groups which they would never have anything to do with or others protesting for non-theological reasons - everyone from sodomite organisations to those who want to demonstrate against the abuse scandal.

The topic of opposition to the Papal visit is one to which I hope to return. But going back to the moves to have Benedict arrested. It would seem that the UK is well on its way towards pre-empting such an eventuality but that those behind the moves wouldn’t regard this as putting pay to their campaign. Do I – despite my opposition to much of what Dawkins and Hitchens stand for - support it? If it leads to justice for the victims of abuse or even just a wider appreciation of suffering and the Pope’s role in the cover-up of such cases (and I am realistic enough to concede that the former is by far the most likely) then yes, I do.

Ulster Protestant?

I chose the title for this blog without a great deal of thought but after my first post yesterday I began to think about the preconceptions which will form in someone’s mind whenever they see the phrase “Ulster Protestant”.

Begin typing the words “Ulster Protestant” into Google and you will get some idea of the image people have of those who adopt the title. The first suggestion is “Ulster Protestant culture”. Hit return and you will find (at least today) that the top result is a press release about a book written by University of Ulster academic David Brett. The article barely mentions the Bible but instead talks about “Ulster-Scots language” and murals of William III and a loyalist paramilitary murder gang called the Ulster Volunteer Force (not to be confused with their early 20^th centaury namesakes who fought with great distinction during the First World War).

Scroll down the page and one will see hits like The Roots of Sectarianism in Northern Ireland and articles about “Blood and Thunder” flute bands which are a common feature of Northern Ireland’s marching season.

The results for “Ulster Protestant culture” give one some idea into the media perception of what that label means.

So let me address some of these perceptions and explain to you why I adopted the name for the purposes of this blog.

I do not speak a language called “Ulster Scots” nor, do I believe, does anyone else.

I have never had any associations with Paramilitary groups and regard involvement in such as incompatible with Protestantism.

I do not believe that true Biblical Protestantism has perpetuated the conflict in Northern Ireland rather those who the media are fond of labelling “Protestant paramilitary groups” (although I have yet to hear them describe the IRA or any of the other Republican paramilitary groups as Roman Catholic or even Catholic paramilitaries) are nothing more than Godless thugs.

This perception of what an Ulster Protestant is has been reinforced by prominent political figures. For example, in March 2006 former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said :

"There are those, perfectly decent-minded people, who say the extremists who commit these acts of terrorism are not true Muslims, and of course, they are right.

"They are no more proper Muslims than the Protestant bigot who murders a Catholic in Northern Ireland is a proper Christian.

"But unfortunately, he's still a Protestant bigot.

"To say his religion is irrelevant is both completely to misunderstand his motive and to refuse to face up to the strain of extremism within his religion that has given rise to it."

In the eyes of Mr Blair, therefore, it would seem that by choosing the name Ulster Protestant I am within a hair’s breath of falling into the same category as Al-Qaeda.

Similarly, in January 2005 the President of the Irish Republic, Mary McAleese said:

“The Nazis didn't invent anti-Semitism, they used anti-Semitism, they built on anti-Semitism but they didn't invent it. It was, for generations, for centuries, an element of the lived lives of many people who, on the surface, lived very good lives, I mean many of them would have regarded themselves, for example, as very good Christians. But they gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews, in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children, an irrational outrageous hatred, for example, of Catholics”.

In the eyes of Mrs McAleese, therefore, the employment of the term Ulster Protestant congers up images of the Nazis and the gas chambers.

Needless to say, I reject either of these descriptions and find both extremely offensive. I think the blogster Archbishop Cranmer summed up my reaction to Mr Blair’s comments best (change a few words and the questions could equally be addressed to Mrs McAleese):

“Why does he juxtapose the term 'Protestant' with 'bigot'? Why not assert that such murderers are not 'true Protestants'? Why not talk of the Catholics who kill Protestants? And what about 'Catholic extremism'? Is it because the term 'Catholic bigot' is, to the Prime Minister, an oxymoron, and Catholic extremism a righteous and holy pursuit? Is it simply that in his mind Protestantism is synonymous with bigotry?

“It is a fact that many in the IRA are religious, committed Roman Catholics, and have the undisguised backing of their church, whereas the Protestant paramilitaries are irreligious and are disowned by the Protestant churches. Is the Prime Minister a Catholic bigot?”

Given, therefore, that the term Ulster Protestant seems to carry such baggage in at least some people’s minds (enough it seems to make white South Africans question if they really do have an image problem after all by comparison) why choose it as a name to blog under?

Well as I said at the beginning of this post the name “Ulster Protestant” was chosen without a great deal of thought yet it was the first name which came to me when I decided that I wanted to blog about religious matters. I suppose that says something about the love I have for the part of the world I have lived in all my life. Ulster (in so far as it has come to be synonymous with Northern Ireland and before anyone points it out I am aware that the terms are not strictly interchangeable) is my home.

Added to that, while I have spent much of this blog trying to distance myself from the media’s portrayal of what an Ulster Protestant is I do celebrate the Battle of the Boyne (although I am not an Orangeman) and the relief of Derry (although I am not an Apprentice Boy) I see both events (and indeed many others which are remembered with affection within what one might describe as the Unionist community in Northern Ireland) as occasions which should be remembered. Perhaps I will blog on some of these events and the way they are celebrated at a later stage.

But this will be primarily a blog which concerns itself with religious matters rather than dealing with things which are specific to the political or cultural life of Northern Ireland.

A second question arises. Why Ulster Protestant? Why not, for example, call ones self Ulster Christian? Surely that would have allowed me to have avoided many of the negative stereotypes the media and senior figures in society associate with the label Ulster Protestant?

Well I chose the name Protestant because I believe it is an honourable name which (as I have said previously ) some have claimed while having no right to it. In this blog I want to do my small part to reclaim the title Protestant and take a stand for what the great Reformers of the 16^th century fought and (in many cases) died for.

Added to that, the name Protestant still carries with it, I feel, something of the reproach which the early followers of Christ experienced when they adopted the name Christian.

A Brief Word of Introduction

Welcome to my blog. Here I will discuss matters which I believe should be of interest to Protestants both in my home country of Northern Ireland and further afield.

From the outset I should make clear that I believe that one can only be a true Protestant if they adopt the five solas of the Reformation (Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide and Soli Deo Gloria). If your Latin is as non-existent as mine you may need those translated so here you go:

Sola Scriptura –Scripture alone. Scripture should be the Christian’s only guide in matters of faith and practice. It contains all instruction on how to obtain salvation and worship God. Anything contrary to Scripture has no place in the life of the Christian. Furthermore, Scripture is completely infallible in relation to all areas which it pronounces.

Solus Christus – Christ alone. Salvation can only be obtained by personal faith in the perfect life and death of the Lord Jesus Christ. Effort on the part of the individual has no role in obtaining their place in Heaven.

Sola Gratia – Grace alone. Salvation is obtained only because of the free and unmerited favor of God to the individual.

Sola Fide – Faith alone. It is only by faith in Christ and that alone that the individual is saved. Works do not play a part in salvation but are the natural outworkings of a true work of conversion.

Soli Deo Gloria – The glory of God alone. This means that everything that is done is done for the glory of God. Christians are to be motivated by God’s glory and not their own. Furthermore, salvation is a work for which God should receive all the glory.

I would like to make it clear early on that I regard the term Protestant as synonymous with true Biblical Christianity. Those who hijack the honourable name Protestant and propagate that which is not in agreement with the tenants of the Reformation have no right to act so while calling themselves Protestants.