The Pope was intimately involved in covering up abuse - Page 4

Again, the Vow of Celibacy, as it pertains to priests, is to abstain via not marrying. The premise is if you are not married you cannot have sex; as it is a mortal sin to have sex outside of marriage.

Lady Gaga is using the word celibacy as well, and by definition, is correct. Being celibate can mean not having sex. However, most people confuse celibacy and chastity.

Wait! What? People misuse valid?

Most people seem to think "valid" is a synonym for "apt" or "proper."

I don't know, man. I think that people do need to be taken to task on the decisions of their leaders. Right now the only change that can possibly come has to come from within the church (or an Interpol raid). Again, we're not talking about condemning direct acts of violence by fringe groups. We're talking about policy and leadership within the organization itself...things that can be changed, even if that change is painful. If it were a corporation or a government, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The whole thing would be a matter for the cops and courts to sort out.

I'm angry with this whole clusterfuck because the coverup has gone on too long. And it's possible I'm being too harsh because I smell blood in the water, and can see some accountability possible on the horizon and I don't feel like we should let up. Maybe Catholics don't really have much a voice in church policy. But if they do, in my opinion, they should be flexing it.

That's a helluva thing...and kinda dumb.

I don't blame people who work at Enron for what happened with their leadership. I don't blame the average Chinese citizen for what their government does.

Do Catholics need to speak up about this sort of thing? Without a doubt. But it's not up to you or I to force their hand.

Agreed on all accounts. But again, that last part isn't up to us.

Should we be crying for full investigations? Yep. Should those responsible be found out and sent to prison? Yep. Should the Pope be part of that? Damn straight. But, I think this is key, this should never be about religion. It should be treated like they were pedophiles and there was a conspiracy. Who these people were and are is irrelevant? They are criminals and need to be treated as such.

Except that the Pope is now beyond the reach of the law thanks to his position in his religious organization providing him an office as the head of a state for his entire lifetime. Remember, there is no way to recall or impeach a sitting Pope and he has immunity from most laws as long as he is the head of the Vatican.

Again, I love that clarification on that point is the first thing he sought after learning of his election. He is such an evil and twisted little fucker. He even has a strange fondness for cats, which makes him as much a Bond villain as a Star Wars villain.

This is an accurate statement. A single member of the Church has no voice. However, every congregation has a committee which can supersede the deacon / priest if necessary in voicing their opinion. They can communicate directly with the diocese, though this is highly unusual.

Being a devout Catholic, I am torn as the Pope is the head of my faith, but, as some have stated previously, if you take the title away, he is still Joseph Alois Ratzinger, a man. I really don't know what to make of this situation, as it is terrible thing. If he truly did ignore these abuses, he certainly should be punished. If these are false accusations, it is really too late to reverse the damages done to the Catholic Community.

If we're talking about the molestation problem, then that particular rule seems counterintuitive. If you go on a church-sponsored dating binge and then ultimately decide that women aren't your cup of tea... well, that doesn't seem to rule out the pedophiles at all. Coming back from a Mall Santa tour would be much more predictive.

Fuck, I forgot that he was Head of State.

Dude, the memo he signed as the head of the former office of the Inquisition threatening priests who went to secular authorities about this with excommunication has leaked. Nobody--not even Ratzinger--is saying that the memo doesn't exist or that the contents are being misconstrued or anything like it. There really is no way a person not doing PR for the Vatican sees these accusations as "smears."

You mean like those South Africans in Lethal Weapon 2? Time to send Riggs and Murtaugh to Vatican City to revoke his DEE-PLO-MADIC IMMOONITY!

I just found the document in question and read it. Thanks, as I did not know this was out there.

I can't really disagree with any of this. The only place I would take issue is the word "blame". Maybe that's the core of the misunderstanding between us here. Taking someone to task is not...at least, not to *me*, assigning blame.

I don't blame the average Republican for Dick Cheney's torture fixation, but I'll sure as shit take your average republican to task for voting for him...twice. They elected someone based on philosophy, or to keep them safe, or whatever. They didn't necessarily know he was an evil bastard. It's not a one-to-one comparison, I know, but no one would get up in my face about painting the average republican with a broad brush for taking them to task. You say that it shouldn't be about religion, and I agree. But that should go both ways. Philosophical belief, political party, employer...whatever. Would you show the same vigorous disapproval with me taking a Blackwater employee to task for the crimes committed by their company?

I wouldn't do it, mind you...because they fucking *kill* people.

Can you send me a link? Thanks.

"I don't think you want to go Vatican City?"

"Why not?"

"Because, you're a leetle boiy"

"Of course, I'm a little boy. That's why I want to go to Vatican City. To join up with my oppressed classmates. To take up the struggle against the tyranny of horny male papal regime."

"One priest, no boys."

"Free Vatican City, you dumb son of a bitch!"

Granted, the web page I found it from does not appear to be the most "friendly" of sites, here you go:

http://www.weirdload.com/vatletter.pdf

Original document from official Vatican site (in Latin of course) - EPISTULA
a Congregatione pro Doctrina Fidei missa
ad totius Catholicae Ecclesiae Episcopos
aliosque Ordinarios et Hierarchas interesse habentes:
DE DELICTIS GRAVIORIBUS
eidem Congregationi pro Doctrina Fidei reservatis

Thanks. On first reading it is not what I imagined, researching a bit more, but here is another take on it;

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ics/ap0329.htm

First thing to note is that this document has been out there for quite some time ...

Difference is that the average Republican did vote for Cheney/Bush. The pope isn't elected by the average Catholic.

As for Blackwater, of course I wouldn't show disapproval. Blackwater's whole MO is to be a libertarian militia for hire. Someone signs on with them and then tries to play the sympathy card they'll get fuck all from me. Catholics never signed up to have a pedophile hiding Palpatine as their leader on earth.

That's fair enough, man. Ryoken wouldn't argue with me anymore earlier in the thread because of my "classy avatar"...and I'm finding it hard to argue with you on the same grounds.

Jeff Smith for Pope 2010

Yet another good read. This does seem to clarify things better.

Ha ha ha. Let me know when that starts happening.

The article seems to discount all of the accusations Hitchens made by essentially saying that Ratzinger was too incompetent and frail to perform his duties as an Archbishop.

If that's true, how in the fuck does he get promoted to head of the Inquisition for being frail and incompetent? Particularly when he got the reputation for being "God's Rottweiler" in that position and earned a reputation as a micomanager for decades in that position? Also, we've been hearing how frail he is his entire career, but he's been the Pope for the better part of a decade now and doesn't seem anywhere near as incapacitated as JPII was during the last years of his stint in the office.

It's a sad day when the only defenses the largest church in the world has for its leader are "but he was an unenthusiastic Nazi" and "he couldn't stop that guy from diddling kids because he was so fucking bad at his job that we had to promote him." They're making Ratzinger look like the Jeff Zucker of the Roman Catholic Church. Benedict XVI: Failing Upward Since 1980.

I actually posted that to put more context behind that document, read some of the other stuff but can't really say much about that since I would rather follow some of the references in there.

As for the micromanagement, I always thought his thing was more on the doctrinal side of things, but again I haven't really read all of the info there talking about that so my comments would be useless in that area.

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of Hitchens, so the article's original claims that Hitchens just let his anti-theistic rage get the better of him were ones I was open to.

But then they had to go and try to assassinate the character of every person involved in the article in the nicest possible way. That overplayed their hand. Hitchens' own response to these "refutations" also paints a much more concrete picture of how hands-on Ratzinger was with the way priests conducted business AND that the letter from the German boy buggerer's psychiatrist was addressed to Joseph Ratzinger.

Seriously, fuck the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.

Screw that, mother-fuckers a witch!

Seriously tho, if a catholic has no voice to protest this to the powers-that-be within the church, and being catholic is inextricably linked to the church heirachy that is their leadership, what exactly is a catholic that takes issue with this to do? I'm asking both catholics and non-catholics here.

In fact what I'm really asking I guess is; can you still be a catholic per se while trying to distance yourself so much from the body that is 'the catholic church' - and at what point of distancing and disagreeing with the heirarchy do you essentially cease to be a catholic and simply become a broader christian?

Some catholics here are saying that people are confusing the faith with the heirarchy - but the heirarchy controls the faith, take away one and you cannot have the other. They wrote the laws on how a catholic should think of their belief, on god, heaven and hell, the trinity, the divine mother the whole kit and caboodle. If the Pope comes out with a new doctrine, it becomes an article of the faith - doesn't it? (eta: because this was meant as a question)

I'm coming from the position of a well and truly lapsed catholic myself as the moment I was able to really question essential power structures I realised catholicism simply didn't connect with me on any level, but I just don't really get how someone who self identifes as a devout catholic, yet has major issues with a heirarchy that shelters and protects the sort of man that would rape many many children over a period of decades can reconcile it all in their head and heart.

Nah, you want Phoney Bone in there.

Catholics find ties to the church tested by crisis

And I thought this was interesting.

Sure. If you extend the window of comparison to include the pious folks from even just the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, most of the guys today would seem pretty progressive and intelligent.

And this...
You don't say. I'm going to go out on a limb here and offer that the "mystique of the papal office" might actually be part of the problem. Didn't this guy read The Wizard Of Oz.

This is going to be a rough Easter for some folks. I don't envy having a crisis of faith around a high holy day. I had mine when I was in my teens and shuffled off the Catholic coil. Even by that early point in my life, I could see the problem with the "organized" end of religion. I'd urge any Catholics finding themselves in a true bind with this to consider looking at faith as your own port-a-pew.

Jesus certainly thinks of it this way. He told me last night.

What will the Vatican do without Frank Sinatra to act as it's goodwill ambassador with this?

Fascinating, and that kinda covers some of the querying I did in my post above. I think people are underestimating how many people are going to walk away from the church over this.

This was an interesting opinion piece from an Australian catholics perspective that covers similar ground...

You got to love how this guy just keeps trying to dodge pesky things like questions. His years in the Reich trained him well.

Man, next time I go to Confession I'm bringing a wooden mallet with me, just in case that priest sticks his penis through that little window. If he does, WHACK!

Oh wait, I'm not 9 years old!

I loved Colbert's suggestion tonight that they should quietly reassign the pope to another religion where no one knows him.

He can come take over the Greek Orthodox church. Our current guy is too bland to properly hate and I'm forced to hate on petty little bishops here and here. I'd welcome an enemy of his caliber. He can bring his rape squad too, if he wants.

Bill Donahue is crazy and a fringe Catholic. He's the guy who lead the protests against DOGMA. He's not really the "leadership," he's just a crazy person with a lot of media savvy.

Then where exactly is the catholic 'leadership' to refute what he's saying or at the very least reinterpret?

Maureen Dowd is certainly giving his words weight...

Look, I haven't been a practicing Catholic for almost five years, and Dowd is absolutely right, but Donahue and the Catholic League are a joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...S.)#Activities

He goes after everybody.

According to the Vatican, finding fault with Joseph Ratzinger is akin to hating the Jews. It's a really, really odd line of defense for somebody who was literally a Nazi. I'd say being a Nazi is closer to being anti-Semitic than not liking a former Nazi and pederasty enthusiast.

And now some concrete evidence the Pope was involved.

This asshole needs to go down.

In flames, I mean.

...and now it's turning into a fucking world tour...

Church abuse cover-ups scandal moves to Britain


Fucking hell, what the fuck is up with all these poor deaf kids as targets???

They (the Deaf kids) are weak and most people can't understand them. So the Pedo Priests thought they could get away with their crimes and the kids could not tell anyone or be believed or paid attention to. Despicable.

I'm still not understanding the lack of criminal charges. Since when is it up to an organization to which the perpetrator belongs to decide on punitive action? Only the military is supposed to have the right to sidestep the criminal justice system and employ their own. Right? Why does the church get to have a say in it at all?

So....... what do they have to hide? OH... right, the touching of penisessssss. So this means they're essentially admitting to all this abuse and don't want to be charged years from now when people come forward. This is actually kinda frightening that they're against this.

You have to give it to these guys, Rain Dog. Their sense of a global mission is unparalleled.

Funnily enough, upon being Poped in the 1340's, Clement the something or other claimed his predecessors had no idea "how to be a Pope". This might sound noble and reassuring, but what he meant was that they didn't hold lavish enough parties and fondle enough children. And while this vicar of Christ survived the Black Death, he died soon enough from v fuckin' d.

Shitty popes are about as uncommon as bird crap on a freshly washed car. And, of course, history has offered some pretty big britches to fill. The rub with the latest guy is, for myself, not the insinuation of complicity in covering up incidents of abuse by clergy...that's gotta be so rife throughout the church structure, I'd be disappointed if he was somehow that ignorant.

My problem is the Hitlerjugend thing, though not in the conventional sense. Having spent years studying collaboration and resistance in Europe during the twelve year Reich, I have come to an almost complete understanding for the practicalities of doing what is necessary (across a frighteningly wide spectrum) to survive under what were obviously such atrocious circumstances they beggar comparison.

The thing with Ratzinger is not that he may have reluctantly submitted to involvement in the Hitlerjugend. In and of itself, the act was hardly uncommon and fairly understandable. My issue is with this unhealthy dollop of piety that roman cathys of his ilk carry with them. If his faith was that strong, shouldn't it have been more appropriate to face the consequences of resistance than to compromise in even the slightest?

Hell, I know I'd cave. That's how I roll. But I don't fancy myself the epitome of the Christian soldier. Frankly, I'd find it hard to buy any kind of thoughts on pious and moral behavior from someone who couldn't put his ass where his faith was at a time when God really was out to lunch.

Hard to believe that after decades alone with my faith on the outside of the church, I have higher standards for the Pope than the weekly pew polishers. It's crucial to understand, though, that this is a personal gripe with him and his position on principle. The abuse fiascoes and lack of proper response have sadly become so de rigueur it's almost impossible to react anymore owing to emotional exhaustion.

Watching some Catholic pundits portraying Ratzinger as an enforcer of change, and this whole thing as a spiritual issue, this past weekend made me want to punch my TV. If this happened in any other organisation the leader's resignation would be expected within hours.