Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: All loving all caring Pope
Ay Catholics here that would like to defend their Pope?
Any Catholic here that could explain to us all, how this parasite personally suffered as a result of his priests Raping and Molesting children?
Your good Pope, wile referring to the cases of child molesting, committed by his Priests, the very ones he PERSONALLY tried to cover up, said that the Church and himself personally have suffered from it.
You will notice that their is no mention of the fact that the Children suffered, he apparently doesn't think they did. Only the Church and himself That tells a story eh?
Suffer little Children, suffer unto me. Your dear Pope seems to take that phrase literally.
Any one here believe in this parasitic Pope?
Did you know that this tosser volunteered to join the Nazi's? Did you also know that as soon as the Russians started shooting back at him, he deserted his brothers in arms, he ran for miles to make sure it was the Americans he surrendered to though and not the Russians, a lovely man don't you think?
This great war hero, also threatened to excommunicate any one who revealed any case of child rape or molestation committed by one of his loving priests. A lovely man for sure.
Quote:
After the red-carpet treatment in Maryland, Pope Benedict traveled to Washington under tight security in a large motorcade to begin his six day visit. On his flight to the US, the pontiff said the sexual abuse of children had caused "great suffering" for the Church and "me personally". More than 5,000 sexual abuse victims have come forward since 2002. The scandal has cost the Church $2bn (£1bn) in damages.
"It is a great suffering for the church in the United States and for the Church in general and for me personally that this could happen," he said. "As I read the histories of those victims, it is difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betrayed in this way.
"Their mission was to give healing, to give the love of God to these children. We are deeply ashamed and we will do what is possible that this cannot happen in the future."
"Who is guilty of paedophilia cannot be a priest," he added, stating that the Church was now reviewing candidates for the priesthood.
I have to agree, HO. What is he doing here? Colossally bad timing. Not only is Puritan America all up in arms over Catholic pedophilism, but he’s talking to a lame duck president with a 32% approval rating. What was he thinking when he decided to come here?
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 Posts: 6381 Location: In Sharon's Heart
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:47 am Post subject:
I doubt the Pope suffered at all, the only thing that suffered was the Churches wallets. It must be so exhausting to blackmail and bribe victims to take the money and keep quiet, but hey, all in a days work, right?
Joined: 29 Jul 2007 Posts: 3365 Location: inner west sydney, australia
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:41 am Post subject:
the pope a nazi? it should be made clear that benedict xvi was for a long time an influential person in the vatican and his positions against nazism and anti-semitism have not just appeared since his election as pope.
that ratzinger was a member of the hitler youth is a biographical fact. from the way the way some people talk about it, you would think this is a skeleton that he keeps firmly in his closet, but he mentions it in his memoirs. his critics conveniently forget that enrolment in the hitler youth was compulsory. and he was conscripted into the german army. but he was never a member of the nazi party.
if he was anti-semitic, would benedict xvi visit cologne’s synagogue? cologne is a city with a rich jewish history dating back to the time of the roman empire. it is a city that experienced the kristalnacht - the pogrom against the jews that took place throughout germany in 1938.
i find it odd that a lot of people have nothing but good to say about john paul ii, but nothing good to say about benedict xvi. the then cardinal ratzinger was, after all, one of john paul ii's closest advisors. he may not be as charismatic as his predecessor, but he is the right person to head the church at this trying time.
yes, the church did overlook the abuse of children, and is now paying the price. pope benedict met with victims of paedophile priests during his trip to the united states. the group prayed together and the pontiff then listened to the stories of the victims, and "offered them words of encouragement and hope". benedict has spoken repeatedly about the abuse crisis during his trip to the united states. he called the crisis a cause of "deep shame," pledged to keep paedophiles out of the priesthood and decried the "enormous pain" that communities have suffered from such "gravely immoral behaviour" by priests. he told the bishops that the crisis was "sometimes very badly handled," and that they must reach out with love and compassion to victims.
the pope isn't all seeing or all knowing (and benedict xvi wasn't even pope when all this was happening). he doesn't know what is going on in every parish around the world. remember there are around 1.2 billion catholics all over the world. he can't magically solve everyone's problems. benedict xvi did meet with some abuse victims, and he's not deaf to the situation. he has ancknowledged that the scandal was handled poorly by bishops. what has he done to correct the situation? as much as possible at this stage i think.
should some bishops have been held more accountable. yes, if it can be proved that they knowingly ignored and enabled the situation. and depending on the circumstances, this could be in the ecclesial or secular courts, or both.
you cannot change what has already happened, but you can take steps to stop it happening again. benedict xvi is on record as saying “we are deeply ashamed, and we will do all that is possible that this cannot happen in the future”. which is as it should be.
Yes, mini, but he was Protector of the Faith during these revelations of child abuse, and he countenanced the burying of the truth. He is probably the one person most responsible for buying off the witnesses, and then buying off the victims. The RC church is a moral, not a financial institution. Do you think that was a proper use of its resources?
Joined: 29 Jul 2007 Posts: 3365 Location: inner west sydney, australia
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:53 am Post subject:
this whole unfortunate affair highlights that there are serious problems in the administration of the church but, as we are talking about the day to day operations of the church rather than doctrine or policy, the responsibility here would rest with the cardinals and bishops, who have failed dismally in dealing with the matter. that said, now that the affair is out in the open, the pope is involved and, as i pointed out above, is on record as saying “we are deeply ashamed, and we will do all that is possible that this cannot happen in the future”.
in some cases the bishops simply just did not understand what was happening because they did not effectively communicate with eachother. some of them placed too much importance on protecting the institution of the church. some, inexplicably, failed to understand the harm done to the victims. in the case of boston, cardinal law quite simply paid insufficient personal attention to the problem. it is as if he thought that if he ignored it, left it to others, or threw a bit of money at it, it would go away. a pathetic response to a serious problem.
as for the question of payments to victims, payment as compensation is right and proper; payment to buy silence ("hush money") is legal but, to my mind, immoral, and should never even have been contemplated.
incidentally, clause 1395 in the code of canon law says that "a priest who violates his vow of celibacy with a minor is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants".
this whole unfortunate affair highlights that there are serious problems in the administration of the church but, as we are talking about the day to day operations of the church rather than doctrine or policy, the responsibility here would rest with the cardinals and bishops, who have failed dismally in dealing with the matter. that said, now that the affair is out in the open, the pope is involved and, as i pointed out above, is on record as saying “we are deeply ashamed, and we will do all that is possible that this cannot happen in the future”.
in some cases the bishops simply just did not understand what was happening because they did not effectively communicate with eachother. some of them placed too much importance on protecting the institution of the church. some, inexplicably, failed to understand the harm done to the victims. in the case of boston, cardinal law quite simply paid insufficient personal attention to the problem. it is as if he thought that if he ignored it, left it to others, or threw a bit of money at it, it would go away. a pathetic response to a serious problem.
as for the question of payments to victims, payment as compensation is right and proper; payment to buy silence ("hush money") is legal but, to my mind, immoral, and should never even have been contemplated.
incidentally, clause 1395 in the code of canon law says that "a priest who violates his vow of celibacy with a minor is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants".
I think we agree in all but the acknowledgment.
Quote:
this whole unfortunate affair highlights that there are serious problems in the administration of the church but, as we are talking about the day to day operations of the church rather than doctrine or policy, the responsibility here would rest with the cardinals and bishops, who have failed dismally in dealing with the matter. that said, now that the affair is out in the open, the pope is involved and, as i pointed out above, is on record as saying “we are deeply ashamed, and we will do all that is possible that this cannot happen in the future”.
in some cases the bishops simply just did not understand what was happening because they did not effectively communicate with eachother. some of them placed too much importance on protecting the institution of the church. some, inexplicably, failed to understand the harm done to the victims. in the case of boston, cardinal law quite simply paid insufficient personal attention to the problem. it is as if he thought that if he ignored it, left it to others, or threw a bit of money at it, it would go away. a pathetic response to a serious problem.
But instead of wringing our hands, what they needed was someone to grab the “administration of the church” by the scruff of the neck and shake it so hard it lets those cardinals, bishops and priests know that, “no bulls***, boys, this will not be tolerated.” Cardinal Law is a classic, and he’s left a trail wherever he’s been. Now he’s in Rome, isn’t he?
Quote:
On May 27 it was announced that Cardinal Law was being given the post of archpriest of St. Mary Major Basilica. The basilica is one of the four most important basilicas in Rome.
But wait a minute, then he gets promoted:
Quote:
He's living in The Vatican. His own apartment inside the hallowed halls. His position is that of adviser to the pope. Sort of a papal consigliere. Those who just saw him and actually spoke with him say they summoned the nerve to mention the subject of his Boston diocese. They say he put his head in his hands. He would not comment.
The beat goes on. I think that’s what the USA is pissed about. It went on and on and on with nobody taking responsibility, much less charge. And I beleive ho is saying it's still going on.
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 Posts: 6381 Location: In Sharon's Heart
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:33 am Post subject:
minigirl wrote:
benedict has spoken repeatedly about the abuse crisis during his trip to the united states. he called the crisis a cause of "deep shame," pledged to keep paedophiles out of the priesthood
He cannot keep pedophiles out of the Church because he won't even boot them out when their sexual deviances come to light.
The Church need to change their rules, and make it mandatory that all child sex abuse is reported, otherwise there will ALWAYS be sex abuse in the Church.
Joined: 29 Jul 2007 Posts: 3365 Location: inner west sydney, australia
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:14 am Post subject:
now, i haven't been following this as closely as i would if it were happening in my own backyard, so i don't know the extent or nature of cardinal law's involvement in all of this. the fact that he is still employed by the church suggests to me that he was guilty of incompetent administration rather than anything else, but i don't really know, so i won't pass judgement on him.
if the church chooses it's bishops from the priesthood on the basis of their work as priest, then maybe he is a living example of the "peter principle", which says that in a hierarchy people are promoted when they work competently until they are promoted to a position at which they are incompetent and they remain there. peter's corollary being that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".
now, i haven't been following this as closely as i would if it were happening in my own backyard, so i don't know the extent or nature of cardinal law's involvement in all of this. the fact that he is still employed by the church suggests to me that he was guilty of incompetent administration rather than anything else, but i don't really know, so i won't pass judgement on him.
if the church chooses it's bishops from the priesthood on the basis of their work as priest, then maybe he is a living example of the "peter principle", which says that in a hierarchy people are promoted when they work competently until they are promoted to a position at which they are incompetent and they remain there. peter's corollary being that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".
there's an interesting article in the latest issue of the new york times:
If I may say without offending, more pabulum for the uninformed. They know what’s going on, and inching forward by micro measures is nothing.
Quote:
now, i haven't been following this as closely as i would if it were happening in my own backyard, so i don't know the extent or nature of cardinal law's involvement in all of this. the fact that he is still employed by the church suggests to me that he was guilty of incompetent administration rather than anything else, but i don't really know, so i won't pass judgement on him.
Of course. And if Morton Thiokol were guilty of “incompetent administration” and as a result the Space Shuttle Challenger was destroyed, wouldn’t you be a little bit pissed? Cardinal Law was guilty of much more. He was guilty of a cover up. The fact that he is still employed by the church means that the church ratifies his protection of pedophiles. That is precisely why the American Catholics are pissed off…as well they should be.
Quote:
if the church chooses it's bishops from the priesthood on the basis of their work as priest, then maybe he is a living example of the "peter principle", which says that in a hierarchy people are promoted when they work competently until they are promoted to a position at which they are incompetent and they remain there. peter's corollary being that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".
It is curious that you make this argument. Because I have been saying for years, the Peter Principle is basically an excuse for turning malfeasance into misfeasance. In other words, Josepf Megenla can say, ‘Oh my God, I didn’t realize what those gas canisters were for.’ The church is as guilty as OJ Simpson and Andrea Yeats.
Joined: 29 Jul 2007 Posts: 3365 Location: inner west sydney, australia
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:59 am Post subject:
i don't really see what josef mengele (i assume that's who you mean) has to do with the peter principle, for he was demonstrably competent at the evil he committed. if you've been saying this for years and no-one's been listening, i can see why.....
as for the issue we were discussing, you make it sound as if the pope is trying to dodge the issue. if he was trying to do so, why would he have visited america? the pope is not dodging the issue; he is meeting it head on. his visit has made it impossible to play down the problem. before his plane landed, he said he was "deeply ashamed" of the scandal and pledged to keep paedophiles out of the priesthood. he later told the bishops of america that the problem had been very badly handled (it may not sound it, but this is quite strong criticism when coming from the pope, and the bishops cannot ignore it). he said that they had a God-given duty to reach out with compassion to victims.
this crisis has built up over generations and can't just disappear in a short space of time.
a religious figure who molests children has got to be the most reprehensible type of paedophile, because in the eyes of a child, that person occupies a place of trust... and then that trust is horribly betrayed. for a Catholic child, this is especially acute, since Catholics are taught that the priest represents Jesus.
but the sins of some do not change the truth of the church. it's a sad situation, but it doesn't change what I know is true.
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 2764 Location: Kleptabalonian Consulate, Lake Macquarie, NSW Australia
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: "honest" orator ???
Without bothering to join in such a lame-arsed argument, what I have noticed here is that both honest orator and Cambridge are nothing more than a couple of ignorant and illiterate curmudgeons who won't let any actual facts get in the way of a good old rant.
i don't really see what josef mengele (i assume that's who you mean) has to do with the peter principle, for he was demonstrably competent at the evil he committed. if you've been saying this for years and no-one's been listening, i can see why.....
Yes, thx, mini…I’ll recommend you for a job as a secretary as soon as you graduate. The point is in the comparison between misfeasance and malfeasance. The peter principle is an excuse for those who actually meant to do what they did, to say they only made a mistake.
Quote:
Without bothering to join in such a lame-arsed argument, what I have noticed here is that both honest orator and Cambridge are nothing more than a couple of ignorant and illiterate curmudgeons who won't let any actual facts get in the way of a good old rant.
Stop beating around the bush, wacker. Why don’t you come out and say what you mean. I've never heard you contribute anything of substance to any topic, bushwacker. I expect that’s because you know your limitations.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
