Will The Pope Resign?

[I am a Ghost]

Protestant and Free.

Atheist and free. Vastly preferable.

 

[JoanOfArc]

Your arguments here are weak. You want to:
1. Think that the newspaper is at fault for reporting the news.
Believe that there is a conspiracy against the Church.

There may be, but there is a conspiracy INSIDE the Church which is hurting it far more. There is no proper or improper time to talk about these things.

2. You want to seek sympathy for this man that caused emotional pain to many children in a calculated fashion.

There is a healing process and part of it is confronting the abuser. It's for the victim's good. If you want to see it as punishment, that's fine too. It can serve as a warning to others.

3. It happened a long time ago.
It did and it has affected the victims their whole lives.

4. Again with Easter.
Easter in the Christian viewpoint is about a sacrifice for sin. It is also a time of rebirth. It's symbolic that the Christian event is associated with this Pagan event. In either case, there is not a better time. There needs to be a death of this conspiratorial policy in the Church, so that the image can be reborn.

And that isn't likely to happen because the Pope doesn't seem to believe in what he represents. He is another powerful man clinging to power. The idea of him being infallible is completely lost now, if you could believe it in the first place.

Well i think that your points are weak because:It didnt happen now-it happen long time ago so why it is brought up now?
I dont defend anyone,i hate paedophiles and i think that physical castration would be the best solution,lets castrate them,give them some counselling in the hospital afterwards and we have human rights fixed.And money saved.I dont believe in conspiracies but i believe in agendas.Ive watched like the coverage about the war in Iraq was twisted because Ruper Murdoch owns The Sun and The Times and wanted to buy Fox tv station the same time and Colin Powell's son was in some coucil responsilble for allowing this buy etc.etc.blah blah so much for "freedom of the press".I just wonder why "The New York Times"wasnt so concerned when this NAMBLA guy was appointed as an american ambassador in Luxemburg or Lichtenstein(i cant remember now).Well i didnt hear about any protests then.Double standards much?

 

[JoanOfArc]

Agreed.

It's simply a breeding ground and safe house for pedos and perverts.

yeah blah blah.Catholic church was the only church which during the apartheid in RSA allowed black and white people participate in the mass together while your protestant churches didnt allow it and segregated people.And this that some people join the catholic church with hidden agendas and bad intentions has nothing to do with the Church.Nothing can be done about it except expelling those people once they are uncovered.Do you want church to perform a narcoanalysis on every priest candidate?Its their own responsiblity if they lie to people and pretend to be a person they are not.

 

[Dave]

Well i think that your points are weak because:It didnt happen now-it happen long time ago so why it is brought up now?
I dont defend anyone,i hate paedophiles and i think that physical castration would be the best solution,lets castrate them,give them some counselling in the hospital afterwards and we have human rights fixed.And money saved.I dont believe in conspiracies but i believe in agendas.Ive watched like the coverage about the war in Iraq was twisted because Ruper Murdoch owns The Sun and The Times and wanted to buy Fox tv station the same time and Colin Powell's son was in some coucil responsilble for allowing this buy etc.etc.blah blah so much for "freedom of the press".I just wonder why "The New York Times"wasnt so concerned when this NAMBLA guy was appointed as an american ambassador in Luxemburg or Lichtenstein(i cant remember now).Well i didnt hear about any protests then.Double standards much?

I covered the part about it being brought up now. I mostly talked about the fact that there is no good time to talk about these things. But I didn't talk about the fact that these victims can take a long time to be able to talk about it publicly. They aren't proud of it. It's the reason many rapes go unreported. The victim will think they are to blame. And when it's your priest that did it, that has to be very difficult.

See, the Pope apparently does not agree with you, which is why he seems to have provided cover for this to continue.
You really should believe in conspiracies. People go to jail for the crime of conspiracy all the time.

I tried to find the NAMBLA guy and found a "homosexual activist" James Hormel who was nominated as Ambassador to Luxembourg. He was not a "NAMBLA guy." Voting on his nomination was blocked largely due to Jesse Helms and... John Ashcroft. With people like that trying to stop him, he must have been doing something right.

There are some conservative sites that try to link him to NAMBLA because "Hormel funds the San Francisco-based Hormel Library, which contains pornographic pictures and stories, as well as material linked to the North-American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)".

Material "linked" to NAMBLA? What does that mean? And a library that has "pornographic" stories and pictures? According to who?

Come on. You made me do the google search and that's all you've got?

Maybe the reason you didn't know the guy's name is because... HE'S NOT THE POPE. He is a guy that was nominated and had a smear campaign against him because he was gay. Something which the Church does not approve of by the way, though molesting little boys seems to be okay.

yeah blah blah.Catholic church was the only church which during the apartheid in RSA allowed black and white people participate in the mass together while your protestant churches didnt allow it and segregated people.So here is your answer.And this that some people join the catholic church with bad intentions has nothing to do with the Church.Nothing can be done about it except expelling those people once they are uncovered.Do you want church to perform a narcoanalysis on every priest candidate?Its their own responsiblity if they lie to people and pretend to be a person they are not.

But THEY DID NOT EXPEL THEM. They covered it up, transferred them, told the victims that this was the first case, when they were aware it was not, when they has already paid off other victims.

It IS their responsibility, and when they are forced to take responsibility for it, even many years later, that is as it should be, right?

 

[JoanOfArc]

Yes more like"The New York Times"editor woke up 1day and thought"Easter is coming what to write about hm...maybe lets write about paedophilia in catholic church,what was this old case in the 90ties,some deaf boys were molested...".Im wondering what will be their cover story during Christmas lol.Anyway the guy wasnt expelled because he died.I thought ive already written that in previous post.I repeat its not Pope's fault that paedophiles join the priesthood.I think that the key to solution of this situation is to abolish celibacy.And why "New york times"does not write about nambla-man-boy love haha-nice euphemism for paedophilia-how come its legal organization?Maybe now instead of caring so much about german pope in Italy "New york times"would start from the U.S. their anti-paedophile crusade.And stop ressurecting an old case where the guy is already dead and the case is closed.

 

[JoanOfArc]

In Poland priests Maximilian Kolbe and Jerzy Popieluszko are national heroes.Catholic priests were helping the fight against communism and were tortured,murdered .So i really dont like such a smear campaigns like this one now.

 

[dunya]

Well i think that your points are weak because:It didnt happen now-it happen long time ago so why it is brought up now?
I dont defend anyone,i hate paedophiles and i think that physical castration would be the best solution,lets castrate them,give them some counselling in the hospital afterwards and we have human rights fixed.And money saved.I dont believe in conspiracies but i believe in agendas.Ive watched like the coverage about the war in Iraq was twisted because Ruper Murdoch owns The Sun and The Times and wanted to buy Fox tv station the same time and Colin Powell's son was in some coucil responsilble for allowing this buy etc.etc.blah blah so much for "freedom of the press".I just wonder why "The New York Times"wasnt so concerned when this NAMBLA guy was appointed as an american ambassador in Luxemburg or Lichtenstein(i cant remember now).Well i didnt hear about any protests then.Double standards much?

Which exhibits all the classic means of avoiding facing up to the question.

1) it's an old story, not relevant now.
2) The victims won't want to rake it over again.
3) The victims are dead, so there's no point.
4) It's a conspiracy to discredit, by people with a malicious agenda.
5) Attacking the Questioner (by associating them with disreputable people/beliefs) in order to distract attention from the Question.


Truth is Paedophiles are attracted to the Church because it gives them access to potential victims, AND because the Church has done very little to effectively hinder their activities. Moving to another Parish, hushing up those who complain, hiding behind the authority of the Institution. This is not simply about reprehensible dereliction of duty of care, it is criminal actions by those who were trusted to care, and should be tried in Courts of Law like anyone else.

 

[JoanOfArc]

Which exhibits all the classic means of avoiding facing up to the question.

1) it's an old story, not relevant now.
2) The victims won't want to rake it over again.
3) The victims are dead, so there's no point.
4) It's a conspiracy to discredit, by people with a malicious agenda.
5) Attacking the Questioner (by associating them with disreputable people/beliefs) in order to distract attention from the Question.

3th-victims arent dead but the the guy who was accussed about it is dead.He died 4th months after the letter to Ratzinger was written,so what Ratzinger could do about it?4th-i dont believe in conspiracies lol,i was just disgusted in this cheap sensations-style,looking for sensation,dragging Ratzinger's name into it coz it looks good on the headline"Pope involved blah blah"but after reading article-his so-called "invovlment" is the case of answering the letter etc.etc.5th lol"Die Eristische Dialektik "by Schopehauer is my favorite book too but i didnt attack the questioner(arg.ad personam and ad hominem-people often mistake them)but i didnt use any of them,i just asked him a few questions.But what is the real question?Here are few articles which appeared out of the blue,about a case that is long gone and the guy accused is dead so he cant answer the questions.So?I would understand if something happened just now,some case of molesting happend few days ago and is being covered then ok,then those articles would seem logical,but this...looks to me like looking for cheap sensations and good sounding headlines like:"Paedophile in Vatican"."Pope protecting paedophile"blah and blah.What a cheap journalism.

 

[JoanOfArc]

Moving to another Parish, hushing up those who complain, hiding behind the authority of the Institution. This is not simply about reprehensible dereliction of duty of care, it is criminal actions by those who were trusted to care, and should be tried in Courts of Law like anyone else.

I agree with this.And i too dislike those pratices,i think its done to avoid scandal and doing the damage to Church image.But it only destroys church credibility.I think they should be expelled immediately,and tried by a civil court(not church court).

 

[Dave]

Conspiracy (crime)

Statutory conspiracy

Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 provides:

"...if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either -

(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or
(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible, [added by S.5 Criminal Attempts Act 1981]

he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question."

 

[Kewpie]

JoanOfArc, you remind me of one of my former Brazilian fellow students who claimed that Catholithism was the best religion after 9/11.

Of course other fellow Christians challenged him.

 

[JoanOfArc]

JoanOfArc, you reminded me of one of my former Brazilian fellow students who claimed that Catholithism was the best religion after 9/11.

???9/11?What it has to do with Catholicism?

 

[JoanOfArc]

Of course other fellow Christians challenged him.

?And what did they say?Obviously everyone thinks that his religion is the best,nothing wrong with that.

 

[Dave]

Which exhibits all the classic means of avoiding facing up to the question.

1) it's an old story, not relevant now.
2) The victims won't want to rake it over again.
3) The victims are dead, so there's no point.
4) It's a conspiracy to discredit, by people with a malicious agenda.
5) Attacking the Questioner (by associating them with disreputable people/beliefs) in order to distract attention from the Question.


Truth is Paedophiles are attracted to the Church because it gives them access to potential victims, AND because the Church has done very little to effectively hinder their activities. Moving to another Parish, hushing up those who complain, hiding behind the authority of the Institution. This is not simply about reprehensible dereliction of duty of care, it is criminal actions by those who were trusted to care, and should be tried in Courts of Law like anyone else.

Perfect summation. It's nice to have Joan of Arc lay out these arguments so that they can be dismantled. Focusing on the man who died, as if that brings it all to an end, doesn't work because it was not an isolated case and now we know that the Pope himself is involved. That makes it an issue that is currently relevant.

 

[Happy Maudlin]

Protestant and Free.

Not quite. Other cases arose for the sin of the Protestant Church concerning pedophiles finding refuge in youth groups and church services for children. Also fraudulent means of collecting funds through the guise of tithe and offering has soiled the reputation of many a mega church.

 

[Happy Maudlin]

yeah blah blah.Catholic church was the only church which during the apartheid in RSA allowed black and white people participate in the mass together while your protestant churches didnt allow it and segregated people.And this that some people join the catholic church with hidden agendas and bad intentions has nothing to do with the Church.

Brilliant point, even though the Catholic Church itself did permit racist ideologies back in the day. Pope Pius also allowed the ruthless slaughtering of Jews during the Holocaust by his own lack of acknowledgment.

 

[Kewpie]

???9/11?What it has to do with Catholicism?

Overwhelming majority of the people contributed in this thread do not take part in any form of organised religion.

The discussion I mentioned took place just after 9/11 in 2001 that's why I still remember about it.

 

[dunya]

Thanks for your clarification JOA

The reason it's an issue now is plain. Complaints about abuse years ago were ignored. Consequently the abuse has continued to the present day. The question is Why?
More precicely - how was this allowed to happen, why was action not taken sooner, and why are those who ask for the matter to be taken seriously being attacked by the Vatican..

From a SNAP statement reported in the Independent (29/3/10)

Top Roman Catholic officials are rubbing salt "into the already deep wounds of those who have been victimized and disillusioned by the Catholic church" by criticizing those speaking out about the Vatican, said Mary Guentner, a spokeswoman for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Guentner, who says she was abused by a nun in a different school, said victims should be praised, thanked and welcomed but instead have been vilified, mischaracterized and insulted for speaking out.

"It's ludicrous to claim that these hundreds of once-trusting, devout Catholics are somehow conspiring to hurt the world's most powerful religious figure," she said.

It's true that abuse has and does occur in many hierarchical institutions, some secular, some religious. To accuse one should not distract from the other. ALL should be accountable. Unfortunately, in the matter under debate here, those responsible appear to be trying to deflect criticism by denigrating the victims, yet another abuse of power, and showing a deep unwillingness to accept responsibility, or to accept the seriousness of the damage done.

 

[Happy Maudlin]

Thanks for your clarification JOA

The reason it's an issue now is plain. Complaints about abuse years ago were ignored. Consequently the abuse has continued to the present day. The question is Why?
More precicely - how was this allowed to happen, why was action not taken sooner, and why are those who ask for the matter to be taken seriously being attacked by the Vatican..

From a SNAP statement reported in the Independent (29/3/10)



It's true that abuse has and does occur in many hierarchical institutions, some secular, some religious. To accuse one should not distract from the other. ALL should be accountable. Unfortunately, in the matter under debate here, those responsible appear to be trying to deflect criticism by denigrating the victims, yet another abuse of power, and showing a deep unwillingness to accept responsibility, or to accept the seriousness of the damage done.

Ace argument. Also this abuse of power has an edge to it when its done within the pretense of it being "God's will". This unfortunately presents a damaging effect on the victims psychologically.

 

[JoanOfArc]

Brilliant point, even though the Catholic Church itself did permit racist ideologies back in the day. Pope Pius also allowed the ruthless slaughtering of Jews during the Holocaust by his own lack of acknowledgment.

Well i dont think so.This is what ive found in eng:News from Father Scavizzi
In the spring of 1943 Pirro Scavizzi, an Italian priest, told Pius that the murder of the Jews was "now total", even the elderly and infants were being destroyed "without mercy". Pius is reported to have broken down and wept uncontrollably.[32]

Pius said to Father Scavizzi “I have often considered excommunication, to castigate in the eyes of the entire world the fearful crime of genocide. But after much praying and many tears, I realize that my condemnation would not only fail to help the Jews, it might even worsen their situation… No doubt a protest would gain me the praise and respect of the civilized world, but it would have submitted the poor Jews to an even worse persecution.”[33]

[edit] Attempted kidnapping
Main article: Alleged plot to kidnap Pope Pius XII