Penn and Teller Strut the New Aggressive Atheism

Penn and Teller, a pair of magicians of whom I was previously only vaguely aware, have apparently broadcast a TV show directly attacking the Catholic Church. A friend sent it along. I at first did not respond, not believing that anyone could take it seriously. But he felt strongly that some would, and after the wide credence given to some of the things in the Da Vinci Code, I guess anything is possible.

So here's my detailed refutation, in case you've seen the TV show:

The very silliest thing is Penn and Teller's centrepiece claim that the Italian comic Sabrina Guzzanti is being persecuted by the Church for saying the Pope was going to go to hell. And, what, it turns out, has the church done to her? Nada, nothing; except to announce publicly that they forgive her whatever she has said. Nobody has sued her, nobody has prosecuted her, for anything. Apparently simply _disagreeing_ with her is an intolerable violation of her rights. But if so, how is it okay for her to disagree with the Church in the first place? How can she object, as she does explicitly in the film, to the Vatican "expressing its opinions about everything." Free speech for the rich and famous, but not for Catholics? What could be nuttier? What could be more hypocritical?

Penn and Teller make much out of the Vatican's opposition to a UN Resolution to supposedly "decriminalize" homosexuality back in 2008. A few things they fail to note: first, there was no such resolution. There was only a non-binding "declaration" brought to the floor, because France, the sponsor, saw it could not get enough support for a resolution. And even the declaration was voted down. Most of the members of the UN opposed it, notably including the USA. So why single out the Vatican's opposition? It was a lousy idea, and, directly counter to the film's claim, asserted far more than the notion that homosexuality should not be a crime--a proposition with which the Vatican publicly agrees. For example, it would have officially declared that homosexualty was entirely genetic, and that homosexual sex was a human right.

The clip notes that bishops, on their appointment, vow to "protect the church from scandal," and claim this as proof of a conspiracy to suppress evidence. Eh? What it means is that the bishops vow not to _cause scandal_, i.e., not to do anything scandalous. That is scandalous? Catch-22.
 
Then they turn to the document CRIMEN SOLLICITATIONIS, which they call a "bombshell," and ignorantly refer to the Church "discreetly" writing the title in Latin. Were they aware of the existence of human life beyond the English-speaking world, they might realize that all Vatican documents are written entirely in Latin--what they have seen, presumably, is an unofficial English translation.
 
So what's their bombshell? Apparently, the revelation from this document that the Catholic Church has always, like every other properly-run large organization, kept personnel files, and that, like every other well-run large organization, these files include references to any marginally credible accusations of impropriety.
 
So let's get this straight--it would have been more responsible to ignore such accusations?
 
Of course, the files are secret, as they are in any organization; otherwise, accused employees would have a legitimate legal case of slander to pursue in most countries.
 
A bombshell in one sense, I suppose: I'm surprised to learn the Church is this well organized.
 
Another spectacular bit of ignorance: Penn explains that the Pope is able to get away with this "coverup" because he was granted immunity from prosecution "by President George W. Bush." This would be meaningful, of course, only if the US President's word were law in all countries of the world. The Pope is neither a citizen nor a resident of the US.
 
One of their interviewees intones "The Vatican has said a man who has AIDS cannot use a condom even to save the life of his wife." That implies that it is established fact that using a condom will save her life. It is far more likely that, over time, using a condom and continuing to have sex will murder her in cold blood. The Catholic position, of course, is that the man should stop having sex. Tough medicine? No more than the priesthood asks of themselves.
 
Penn then ridicules a claim in the Vatican newspaper that female hormones from birth control pills are causing environmental pollution, a claim that cited over 300 medical studies. His refutation? Simply calling it "ridiculous" and saying "the Vatican should leave science to those who actually believe in it."
 
So where are Penn's opposing studies? Where is his science, if he believes in it?
 
And on what does he base this offhand claim that the Vatican does _not_ believe in science?
 
Here's his evidence: the apparently rhetorical question, "Wasn't it the Vatican who said that smallpox vaccine was a product of the devil?"
 
Sneaky: the correct answer, of course, is no. Catholic priests were actually among the first promote vaccination, and to vaccinate, way back in 1862. It wasn't a rhetorical question at all: just a complete red herring. The startling lack of anything better proves Penn's original claim to be a conscious lie.
 
There are too many smaller lies to mention. The Vatican holocaust deniers?
 
To sum up, their own title, "Bullshit," definitely applies. If this were something clearly directed against an individual, it would be an open and shut case of slander. These two guys would be absolutely nailed to the wall by any good defamation attorney.