I see that Richard Dawkins is once again showing his true intellectual calibre to the world, this time in an anti-Catholic rant that was published on the Washington Post blog.

So much of Dawkins’ life and work is about loathing and hatred, and this latest outburst from him is no exception. In fact I can just imagine him, all alone in his dimly lit study, with bulging eyes, flared nostrils, frothing at the mouth as he frantically scrawls his thoughts across the page, and then after finishing his work, he throws his head back, closes his hands into tight fists, throws his arms out cruciform, and then looking up to the sky he laughs maniacally for several minutes.

Here is a section of what Dawkins had to say…

“Should the pope resign?” No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly – ideally – qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.

No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice – the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution – while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.”

And here is my response…

“A leering old villain in a frock…”
Cheap insults will get you nowhere my dear Richard. I mean seriously, is the best that you can come up with after all those years of academic study?

Why don’t you just call him a ‘poo-poo face’ and push him off the slide while you’re at it?

“…who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds”
This is just plain old character assassination that has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. Next you’ll be claiming that he eats puppies for breakfast and was the real orchestrator of the murders uncovered by Dan Brown in the Da Vinci Code.

“a man who believes he is infallible”
Ah yes, there is nothing like the ravings of a person who doesn’t actually properly understand the thing that they are raging against.

Papal Infallibility is NOT a continual power that is automatically bestowed upon a pontiff at his election, instead it is something that can be exercised by a pope, as long as certain criteria are met, and as long as it is being exercised in a matter pertaining to faith and morals.

But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good frothy mouthed rant?

“and acts the part”
More character assassination that has no basis in reality, in fact everything I read about Benedict, from people who have met him, is that his simple humility is one of his most enduring and striking traits.

“a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa”
Ah yes, I was waiting for this old load of bollocks to crop up, and hey presto, there it is! Good for you Richard, you’re mother will be so proud that you’ve aced this one.

a. Pope Benedict’s so-called “scientific falsehood” about the effectiveness of condoms has been publicly backed by non other than the world renowned expert in HIV and sexual health, and religious agnostic, Dr. Edward Green of the Harvard Medical School.

But I guess you don’t have time to read the facts, what, with all that talking to yourself in books that you do.

b. Even if Pope Benedict was wrong about condom effectiveness, how has he consigned anyone, let alone millions of people, to their deaths?

Is Dawkins really so unthinking as to believe that someone who listens to the pope when he opposes condoms, is not also going to listen to the pope when he opposes sex outside marriage (therefore not sleeping around and thus not exposing themselves to HIV)?!

“a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence”
Righto, back to the character assassination, fabrications, and Dan Brown stuff.

“…he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization…”
So, is this the same ‘organization’ that previous, and long dead, historical figures have been predicting the demise of for centuries?

Or are we now talking about that proud bastion of atheism, Communist Socialism?

“No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign.”
Whew! I’m glad we agree on something!

“…the whole profiteering…”
Exactly how does it profiteer?

Is the Vatican running some casino franchise with rigged tables that we don’t know about – or are they the real owners of Vodafone? Vatican and Vodafone both has a ‘v’ in their name…

Oh, oops, I forgot, we’re not letting the facts influence this article in any way.

“…woman-fearing…”
Yes, it’s so women fearing that it has turned a prayer for the intercessions of a woman (the Rosary) into one of its highest prayers, it has canonized other women as Saints, and it even involves the scary non-men people at the highest levels of decision making within the Church.

Maybe they were so fearful of women, that they thought they’d better elevate some of them to positions of such high esteem or else they wouldn’t harm them with their evil menstrual powers.

“…guilt-gorging…”
Is this even a real thing, or was he just desperate to include some alliteration using the letter g?

How can an organization even gorge itself on guilt?

Does the Catholic Church consume guilt, is that what he’s saying, because if he is, then in a sense he’s correct – guilt is, in a manner of speaking, all eaten up by the Church through the Sacrament of Confession, I suppose.

Or is he trying to say that we take delight in stuffing our collective faces with guilt?

Hold on, how can this be true if he’s just accused us of being complicit in covering up guilt?

“… truth-hating…”
Pot, kettle, black.

Yes, we are such ‘truth haters’ that we keep talking about the importance of truth.

“…child-raping institution…”
Is he still talking about the Church here, cause now he’s describing the actions of the fighting forces of atheistic Communism during WWII.

“…while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.”

Yawn, is this over yet?

I need to go and watch some yoghurt ferment in order to raise the excitement levels round here again.

Seriously though, isn’t it kind of cool that as we head into Holy Week, we, the Church, are actually able to experience a very real form of unjust persecution and crucifixion of reputation, and that this allows us to enter more fully into the mystery of Easter?

Even some of our fellow Catholics on this blog have joined the side of Judas, and are quite happily engaging in daily acts of betrayal while the Sanhedrin guard eagerly wait behind them, ready to pounce and drag away anyone these little Judas’ would signal out to them with a kiss on the cheek.

And all of this is a good thing, because purification only comes through suffering, and the more intense the suffering, the great the purification will be.

So I say, come on Richard, and the rest of your cohort, give us another punch and mocking insult about prophesying about who hit us, you’re only helping us to become better, more faithful Catholics, which is exactly what the world needs right now.