• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope's preacher compares abuse row to anti-Semitism

Manc Skipper said:
Richard Dawkins (whatever you think of him) has already set the process in motion in the UK to have him arrested on his next papal visit.
Click to expand...

Did not know that, thanks
 
ludahai said:
the very institutions that oppose the church's message for today's world are involved in continuing to spread this and harp on it.
Click to expand...

the problem is that the church buried these accusations. They blamed the victims, hushed things up, moved the priests to new dioceses, and did not report the crimes to the authorities.

Now, all the dirty laundry has built up to such a mass that it's burst the seams of the closet where it was stored, and is spilling out.

This is not a matter of the church being attacked by people who hate it. It's a matter, biblically speaking, of reaping what you've sowed.
 
Manc Skipper said:
"LOS ANGELES - The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including "the good of the universal church," according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.

The correspondence, obtained by The Associated Press, is the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office.

The letter, signed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was typed in Latin and is part of years of correspondence between the Diocese of Oakland and the Vatican about the proposed defrocking of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle. ... "


Future pope resisted defrocking priest - Faith- msnbc.com

He did the same in a German case too.
Click to expand...

Notice the actual Latin text or an English translation of the document is not included with the article. It only includes his signature. Any possible reason for that?

Also, if you read it, you will find that he WAS defrocked in 1987, though the circumstances behind that are not clear.

Also, if you read the article, you will note that there is a lack of specific details about the case and it is clear that local diocesan officials already took him out of priestly duties that would have given him further access to children.

So, once again, it seems like a big ado is being made of actually quite little.

Since you like looking at one side of the story, here is the other side - -from the same article you linked:

The Vatican confirmed Friday that it was Ratzinger's signature. "The press office doesn't believe it is necessary to respond to every single document taken out of context regarding particular legal situations," the Rev. Federico Lombardi said.

Another spokesman, the Rev. Ciro Benedettini, said the letter showed no attempt at a cover-up. "The then-Cardinal Ratzinger didn't cover up the case, but as the letter clearly shows, made clear the need to study the case with more attention, taking into account the good of all involved."
Click to expand...
 
ludahai said:
Notice the actual Latin text or an English translation of the document is not included with the article. It only includes his signature. Any possible reason for that?

Also, if you read it, you will find that he WAS defrocked in 1987, though the circumstances behind that are not clear.

Also, if you read the article, you will note that there is a lack of specific details about the case and it is clear that local diocesan officials already took him out of priestly duties that would have given him further access to children.

So, once again, it seems like a big ado is being made of actually quite little.

Since you like looking at one side of the story, here is the other side - -from the same article you linked:
Click to expand...

Any reason why the Church didn't turn this individual over to law enforcement for committing a criminal act?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Did the U.S. Swimming team collectively cover up child molestation?
Click to expand...

Apparently, yes, though more details will certainly be forthcoming.

Also, the Church did NOT ignore the problem and some priests actually WERE reported to civil authorities and most were removed from ministries where they would have access to children.
 
ludahai said:
Should US Swimming be charged under the RICO statue, or just the Church?
Click to expand...

If they can prove that there was a systemic problem with many coaches and superivsors knowing about it and helping the criminals avoid prosecution, yes.
 
washunut said:
If they can prove that there was a systemic problem with many coaches and superivsors knowing about it and helping the criminals avoid prosecution, yes.
Click to expand...

But has there been any proof of a SYSTEMIC cover-up on the part of the Church. I have seen little more than local diocesan issues and letters potentially taken out of context.
 
ludahai said:
But has there been any proof of a SYSTEMIC cover-up on the part of the Church. I have seen little more than local diocesan issues and letters potentially taken out of context.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about the Pope now. I am talking about what has happened in many places in the U.S.
 
ludahai said:
Considering that he is a sitting Head of State, that is very risky legal ground and won't actually go anywhere.
Click to expand...

Ask Pinochet after his spell under house arrest in the UK. His pal PM Thatcher was livid, but she was impotent against the law. Why do you think Tzipi Livni has cancelled visits?
 
ludahai said:
Apparently, yes, though more details will certainly be forthcoming.
Click to expand...

Then yes, they should

Also, the Church did NOT ignore the problem
Click to expand...

I agree. They saw it as a public relations nightmare and covered it up.

and some priests actually WERE reported to civil authorities and most were removed from ministries where they would have access to children.
Click to expand...

There are dozens of examples to the contrary.

Proof?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Ask Pinochet after his spell under house arrest in the UK. His pal PM Thatcher was livid, but she was impotent against the law. Why do you think Tzipi Livni has cancelled visits?
Click to expand...

Pinochet was NOT a sitting head of state. Livni is not head of state, either...
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Then yes, they should

I agree. They saw it as a public relations nightmare and covered it up.
Click to expand...

Another half-truth. It wasn't always covered up, not by a long shot. Again, in several cases, it was reported to civil authorities and that has ALWAYS been the policy of the Vatican!


[/quote]
There are dozens of examples to the contrary.[/quote]

Many of which are questionable. Frankly, I am tired of the media using the ignorance of the people as to how the Church actually works. You are one who seems to have little understand for the workings of the Church. You also seem to fail to understand that the Church STILl works on the premise of forgiveness. After all, Jesus forgives us our sins. I also believe that these priests will have a LOT to answer for when they meet our common maker, but that is a matter for God to deal with.

Proof?
Click to expand...

Try reading the articles that have been posted to this thread, for one.
 
ludahai said:
Pinochet was NOT a sitting head of state. Livni is not head of state, either...
Click to expand...

How many heads of a religion think of themselves as a head of state. Another example of the excesses of this group.
 
washunut said:
How many heads of a religion think of themselves as a head of state. Another example of the excesses of this group.
Click to expand...

The Vatican is a state that has diplomatic relations with the vast majority of states in the world (including the United Kingdom). The Pope is the Head of State of the Vatican.
 
ludahai said:
The Vatican is a state that has diplomatic relations with the vast majority of states in the world (including the United Kingdom). The Pope is the Head of State of the Vatican.
Click to expand...

I am aware of the facts above. Just wanted to point out that the way the vatican is treated diplomatically is different than other heads of major religions.

For example do we even know the names of the heads of the Muslim or Mormon religions. Let along call them and their minions heads of states.

Perhaps it is worth asking why does the vatican get this special status. Catholics are a sect within the Christian religion. They may be the largest sect, I do not know.
 
washunut said:
I am aware of the facts above. Just wanted to point out that the way the vatican is treated diplomatically is different than other heads of major religions.

For example do we even know the names of the heads of the Muslim or Mormon religions. Let along call them and their minions heads of states.

Perhaps it is worth asking why does the vatican get this special status. Catholics are a sect within the Christian religion. They may be the largest sect, I do not know.
Click to expand...

The difference is because the Vatican is an independent state with international relations with other states. It is partially a relic of the fact that the Holy See was in control of a rather significant state for quite some time (known as the Papal States) and the current Vatican City can be regarded as a successor to the Papal States though there is a nearly six decade break in continuity between the incorporation of the Papal States into a united Italy and the ratification of the Lateran Treaty that established the sovereignty over the Vatican City. Furthermore, even the United Nations recognizes the Vatican City as a non-Member State and accords the Vatican City observer status on that basis. I suppose when an Islamic or Morman has sovereign control over territory, then they to can be regarded as a Head of State.
 
washunut said:
How many heads of a religion think of themselves as a head of state. Another example of the excesses of this group.
Click to expand...

I do not think that all "heads of religions think that they are heads of state". The VATICAN is in a very unusual position in that it is the only HQ of a religion that I know who actually is treated as a state In a way it is good that the Vatican is "separate" from the country that it lives in since Catholocism is spread over all continents except Antartica ( the penguins must be protestant). It is the most centarlized church and even the ANGLICAN Church cannot even rival it in centralization, raw beauracracy and it's command and control maybe rivals most militaries. lol
 
F107HyperSabr said:
I do not think that all "heads of religions think that they are heads of state". The VATICAN is in a very unusual position in that it is the only HQ of a religion that I know who actually is treated as a state In a way it is good that the Vatican is "separate" from the country that it lives in since Catholocism is spread over all continents except Antartica ( the penguins must be protestant). It is the most centarlized church and even the ANGLICAN Church cannot even rival it in centralization, raw beauracracy and it's command and control maybe rivals most militaries. lol
Click to expand...

I wonder if its command and control procedures are similar to the mafia setup.
 
washunut said:
I wonder if its command and control procedures are similar to the mafia setup.
Click to expand...

now now now !!! let's not be anti-papist !! lol !! The Church would only behave as the mafia does in matters of money - theirS or what they want to become theirs LOL !

oh yeh they stoopped torture, burning at the stake and defenistration a few hundred years ago so I alos wonder how they elleiminate peole who talk badly about the Church or doen't pay up for Uncle Toonoosh's funeral MASS !!!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom