Catholic Church about to collapse

yea sure, let dawkins push his political adjender at the expense of abuse victoms. What an admiral person :mad:

Is he out atacking the health care system? the scouts? was he out atacking the NSW goverment because there was a minster who was found to be abusing children IN PARLIMENT HOUSE. No, he just atacks the church because thats where his political adjender lies. I watched him on the ABC's Q&A program recently and of all the pannelests on that show the only ones who impressed me where the agraculture minster slightly and the Australian of the year MASSIVILY. Any credibility dawkins had as a human being is well and truly gone
 
PsychoTropicPuppy said:
It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Pope has engaged in similar activities.
Click to expand...

Whether he has or not is not the point.

The point is, as the 'head of state', 'the pontiff', he sets the moral standard.

To cover up is to be complicit. Worse, it's aggravated collusion.

He had a chance to denounce these behaviours, he didn't. He chose the lowest moral ground, the grubby route, he put the reputation o.f the Catholic Church above the rights of the young and innocent.
His only possible defence is that he was possessed by the devil (pfffttt!)

His is a major, major crime.
He should be found guilty, the proof is there, (trying to hide behind some pseudo diplomatic immunity is pathetic).
Lock the disgusting fucker up.
And let the Catholics talk their way out of this one.
They'll try and they'll believe their own rhetoric but really. Their goose is cooked.
 
wsionynw said:
Balls to the pope.
The beeb is just very careful where they appear to come down on any given issue, since they aren't supposed to editorialise the news.
Click to expand...

I wish I could there was some truth to that. But they went far and long to tweak information. Pure Stalinist governement run media. It's now wonder the Brits view us the way they do.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
See if you can make a joke from Pontiff.
Click to expand...

Oh Christ. Do I have to?
Isn't the sickest of jokes that the very person who would have everyone believe he is the conduit to the almighty is the same person who sells out to the devil for the sake of the reputation of some twisted kiddie fucker??

Why did the Pontiff drop to the tarmac on arrival at Heathrow?

Dodging a bullet. He sure wasn't smooching the soil that is the motherland of Dawkins.
 
Asguard said:
yea sure, let dawkins push his political adjender at the expense of abuse victoms. What an admiral person :mad:
Click to expand...
And what of the head of a church that has allowed and ignored the abuse that his priests were committing against his most vulnerable flock? The Pope willingly and knowingly allowed priests to remain in his position, with access to young children, even when the Bishops and Archbishops were complaining about the abuse and demanding action.

Dawkin's political agenda pales in comparison to what the Church has done, or more to the point, not done with priests that sexually abused children.


Is he out atacking the health care system? the scouts? was he out atacking the NSW goverment because there was a minster who was found to be abusing children IN PARLIMENT HOUSE.
Click to expand...
The difference here is that scout masters and politicians who are caught abusing children are arrested and charged for their crimes. The Church has hidden and covered up the abuse and allowed the abusers to remain in place.

No, he just atacks the church because thats where his political adjender lies.
Click to expand...
By laying blame where the blame lies? By keeping the complete inaction of the Church and its leaders into the limelight? How dare he..

And just so you know:

Leading atheist Richard Dawkins has backed a campaign to have the Pope arrested for "crimes against humanity" when he visits the UK later this year.

Professor Dawkins said he "whole-heartedly" backed the initiative led by atheist Christopher Hitchens.

UK human rights lawyers are preparing a case to charge Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

----------

Barrister Geoffrey Robertson and solicitor Mark Stephens are considering whether they could either ask the Crown Prosecution Service to initiate criminal proceedings against the Pope; launch their own civil action or refer his case to the International Criminal Court.

Author Christopher Hitchens said he does not believe the Vatican to be a legal state which raises questions as to whether the Pope, as head of state, could claim diplomatic immunity.

He said: "The UN at its inception refused membership to the Vatican but has allowed it a unique "observer status", permitting it to become signatory to treaties such as the Law of the Sea and (ironically) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to speak and vote at UN conferences where it promotes its controversial dogmas on abortion, contraception and homosexuality."

The group have cited as precedent the recent case of Israel's former foreign minister Tzipi Livni, who cancelled a visit to London after a British judge issued an arrest warrant over her alleged involvement with the conflict in Gaza.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8614232.stm
Click to expand...
 
BlueRidge said:
I wish I could there was some truth to that. But they went far and long to tweak information. Pure Stalinist governement run media. It's now wonder the Brits view us the way they do.
Click to expand...

The beeb is not run by the government, it is publicly funded but that is not the same thing.

Who is 'us'?
 
One would think that someone filled with the conviction of God would have had the cojones to refuse service in the Nazi Youth as a kid- assuming Ratzinger was indeed reluctantly forced to join in the first place, as he claims. Same with the Vatican in WW2- I have yet to see any evidence that they took great pains to temper the Holocaust, let alone avert it, and it was the Pope who served as kingmaker when Mussolini took power and made a deal with him.

So now we have yet another big time sex scandal in the Church, a scandal of the sort that can be expected of any mortal institution which holds itself up to divine standards. The only surprising thing about it for me is that they actually got called out on it this time, and that culpability is reaching the highest levels of the Vatican. This should be a truly fascinating episode in the history of religion- billions of followers and their beliefs are at stake here, I'm curious how many of them will attempt to fix the Church, how many abandon it for another sect or religion, and how many of them will accept the silliness of trying to guess the intentions of an intangible and seemingly unprovable supernatural creator.

Edit: I just can't stop thinking about this topic, the implications are enormous. Imagine taking a time machine back to ancient Rome and informing them that their legacy will last about 2000 years before it gets brought down by sex with little boys.
 
Last edited:
Since we are a science based site here, or putatively so, which case are we referring to? And whats the evidence of Ratzingers involvement?
 
Spud Emperor said:
Oh Christ. Do I have to?
Isn't the sickest of jokes that the very person who would have everyone believe he is the conduit to the almighty is the same person who sells out to the devil for the sake of the reputation of some twisted kiddie fucker??
Click to expand...

Not the best of your jokes. Continual jokes and insults just get in the way if there is something serious to discuss.
Perhaps the moderators could moderate a bit on this thread.
I can see it going on for a while, and at the moment anyone of Catholic heritage or inclination is excluded.

Mine involved a child wanting a pond for his goldfish.
Benedict said yes child, you can have a pond, if..........................


Make this the last joke on this thread please.

However,
When you said the very person who would have everyone believe he is the conduit to the almighty is the same person who sells out to the devil , I think that you put the problem for the Catholic Church in a nutshell.
 
Last edited:
The New York Times today reports a welcome shift from the denial and pride that has been been coming out of the Vatican in recent months.

ROME — Pope Benedict XVI spoke on Thursday of the need for Christians to do “penance” in light of “the attacks of the world that talks to us of our sins,” in an off-the-cuff portion of a homily that was his most direct reference to the sex abuse crisis that has focused on the Vatican itself.
Related
Times Topic: Roman Catholic Church Sex Abuse Cases
“I have to say that we Christians, even in recent times, have often avoided the word penance, which seems too harsh,” Benedict said at a Mass on Thursday morning, Vatican Radio reported.

“Now under the attacks of the world that talks to us of our sins, let us see that the ability to perform penance is a grace and we see how it is necessary to perform penance, that is, to recognize what is wrong in our life,” he added.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/world/europe/16vatican.html

OK it's not much, but it is like a little patch of blue sky after weeks of crappy weather.

Pope Benedict is a theologian and an academic.
If he carries on along this train of thought, I wonder what penance he will think is appropriate for such wickedness.

The next stage in the process, is to realise that it is not penance for Christians as an amorphous body, but penance for the leadership of the Catholic Church in particular.
I hope he gets there. Interesting times.
 
Last edited:
Bells said:
And what of the head of a church that has allowed and ignored the abuse that his priests were committing against his most vulnerable flock? The Pope willingly and knowingly allowed priests to remain in his position, with access to young children, even when the Bishops and Archbishops were complaining about the abuse and demanding action.

Dawkin's political agenda pales in comparison to what the Church has done, or more to the point, not done with priests that sexually abused children.



The difference here is that scout masters and politicians who are caught abusing children are arrested and charged for their crimes. The Church has hidden and covered up the abuse and allowed the abusers to remain in place.


By laying blame where the blame lies? By keeping the complete inaction of the Church and its leaders into the limelight? How dare he..

And just so you know:
Click to expand...

bells you miss the point compleatly. if the pope did as he has been acused then he SHOULD be brought to justice but i am VERY suspicious of Dawkins motives. He isnt out everyday campaining for victom rights, hes out everyday campaining for the end of the church and suddenly he wakes up and sees the victoms of child abuse? Bull shit. Would you buy that sort of sudden conversion from one of our pollies? I doubt it, its a cynical excersise designed to push his OWN adjender and the fact that he is using abuse victoms to do it is discusting
 
Spud Emperor said:
Whether he has or not is not the point.

The point is, as the 'head of state', 'the pontiff', he sets the moral standard.

To cover up is to be complicit. Worse, it's aggravated collusion.

He had a chance to denounce these behaviours, he didn't. He chose the lowest moral ground, the grubby route, he put the reputation o.f the Catholic Church above the rights of the young and innocent.
His only possible defence is that he was possessed by the devil (pfffttt!)

His is a major, major crime.
He should be found guilty, the proof is there, (trying to hide behind some pseudo diplomatic immunity is pathetic).
Lock the disgusting fucker up.
And let the Catholics talk their way out of this one.
They'll try and they'll believe their own rhetoric but really. Their goose is cooked.
Click to expand...

And I agree with you.
 
So anyone up to discussing what he's being accused of? And for which cases? And evidence against him?

I read this in The Guardian, which seems to be the only piece addressing the issue :

The three recent stories from the US cited by Richard Dawkins and his mob as "proving" that the pope should be arrested under international law – the horrible cases of Murphy in Wisconsin, Teta and Trupia in Arizona, and now Kiesle in California – have this in common: the abuse took place in the 1970s; the police were informed and acted; the priest was suspended by his bishop; requests for dismissal from the clerical state ("defrocking") were sent to Cardinal Ratzinger's department in the Vatican, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and some time later the priests were defrocked – except in the case of Murphy, who died during his trial.

...But wasn't Ratzinger in charge while all this was going on? Didn't it happen on his watch? No. From 1981 to 2001 he was in charge of a department that dealt with defrocking, but not with suspensions and penalties for paedophile priests, which were the responsibility of local bishops. A number of bishops failed to suspend the abusive priests, some of whom continued to abuse. That is the scandal. It has been exposed and dealt with, and a number of bishops have, as a result, resigned. More important, guidelines are now in place to prevent it ever happening again.

Not only was Cardinal Ratzinger not complicit in these failures, he was the Vatican official who most clearly saw what was needed to tackle the problem. Then, in 2001, Pope John Paul asked him to review the local churches' handling of clerical abuse cases. Cardinal Ratzinger asked bishops around the world to forward to him all cases where credible allegations had been made against priests.

He did this not to "cover up" the crimes – which had been reported to the local police – but to ensure that the priests were more speedily dealt with. He accomplished this by amending the procedure for defrocking to allow for a fast-track procedure that did not involve trials.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/15/pope-mob-benedict-misreading-abuse

Does anyone know any different?
 
CptBork said:
Edit: I just can't stop thinking about this topic, the implications are enormous. Imagine taking a time machine back to ancient Rome and informing them that their legacy will last about 2000 years before it gets brought down by sex with little boys.
Click to expand...

In ancient Rome, it was probably a constitutionally protected right.
 
Asguard said:
yea sure, let dawkins push his political adjender at the expense of abuse victoms. What an admiral person :mad:

Is he out atacking the health care system? the scouts? was he out atacking the NSW goverment because there was a minster who was found to be abusing children IN PARLIMENT HOUSE. No, he just atacks the church because thats where his political adjender lies. I watched him on the ABC's Q&A program recently and of all the pannelests on that show the only ones who impressed me where the agraculture minster slightly and the Australian of the year MASSIVILY. Any credibility dawkins had as a human being is well and truly gone
Click to expand...

He's accusing the church of enabling the abuse of children by relocating offenders rather than informing the proper authorities. They were more concerned about their image than the well-being of children. That's a fact.
 
asguard said:
i am VERY suspicious of Dawkins motives. He isnt out everyday campaining for victom rights, hes out everyday campaining for the end of the church and suddenly he wakes up and sees the victoms of child abuse?
Click to expand...
Dawkins has been making an issue of the abuse of children by religion and religious authorities, including sexual abuse of various kinds, for many years now. There is nothing "sudden" about it.

It's been a long, long time since it became obvious that the major institutionalized religions did not have to meet the same standards as other organizations of similar size and influence, in their administrative handling of criminal behavior by their officials - the child abuse, which the Church has been aiding and abetting, sensational but not really disproportionately so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top