Pope Benedict hit by new Church child abuse allegations

Originally posted by FortAnthem


Oh, yeah wow, he recommended that the Church hold off on defrocking the priest until a full investigation was done and all the facts were in.


Lets hang him.

That's all you think he did? I'd advise opening your eyes. The church is rotting. They chose protecting the Church over protecting the most vulnerable of their flock.

How do these pigs in frocks justify that????

The sad thing is that the Church will probably get away with this like it did with many disgusting and evil things that they've done in the past.

reply to post by jox1234


I humbly beg to point out this has already happened - they not getting away with anything. The veil has been lifted, our social instutitions even the spiritual ones do not serve us. The cultural authority of the church is crumbling because the trust of the faithful has been shaken.

gj
edit add

[edit on 9-4-2010 by ganjoa]

Originally posted by pause4thought
Solid evidence of complicity in a cover-up is presented.

Complicity in a cover-up?

What cover-up? It says in the article that the priest was already sentenced, so what was left to be covered-up? Aren't court orders public? Or was this some closed-door sentence done by a US court?

It would be the same as not banning someone from some organisation because he was sentenced to three years of probation.

Also, after reading the letter, what I noticed was the use of the expressions "This court", making me think that this letter, although signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, was not a private message to the Oakland Bishop, as implied by the general tone of the article, but an official answer from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a body with 23 members and 33 consulters.

This is an evil enclave, full of old men in frocks.

Get rid of the evil vatican!

It is time for the oppressed Roman Catholic believers to stand up and get rid of the evil old men in the vatican.

reply to post by ArMaP

Complicity in a cover-up?

What cover-up? It says in the article that the priest was already sentenced, so what was left to be covered-up? Aren't court orders public? Or was this some closed-door sentence done by a US court?

I'm afraid your position on this displays real naïvité. Forgive me if this seems harsh, but I believe we should have no truck with any stance that puts the reputation of a public body above the protection of the vulnerable.

You have been very selective with your analysis. The plain facts from the article are as follows:

The Pope is facing allegations he was responsible for delaying Church action against a paedophile priest - the first time he has been accused so directly.

The allegations stem from a letter signed by Benedict XVI in 1985, when he was a senior Vatican official.

Associated Press said it had obtained the letter, signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, resisting the defrocking of offending US priest Stephen Kiesle...

...Cardinal Ratzinger - who was at the time the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - said the "good of the universal Church" needed to be considered in any defrocking, AP reported.

Note: the now Pope's priority was not justice — much less the protection of the vulnerable — but reputation. This is a morally reprehensible position.

(And, incidentally, neither he nor the RC 'church' represents the universal Church. Those who study, believe and follow the teachings of Christ and the apostles mostly regard the RC organization as at best a gross perversion of the Christian faith.

As Pope this man has renewed the ancient deception that the Roman organization is itself the 'universal Church', with everything outside it false — so he is either concerned exclusively with the reputation of the RC 'church', or coming on very rich, pretending to have a concern for the Church as a whole:

Protestant churches yesterday reacted with dismay to a new declaration approved by Pope Benedict XVI insisting they were mere "ecclesial communities" and their ministers effectively phonies... The view that Protestants cannot have churches was first set out by Pope Benedict seven years ago when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican "ministry" for doctrine.

)
Source: Dismay and anger as Pope declares Protestants cannot have churches

But I digress.

Now let's get to the heart of the matter:

AP said the Rev Kiesle was sentenced to three years of probation in 1978 for lewd conduct with two young boys in San Francisco. It said the Oakland diocese had recommended Kiesle's removal in 1981 but that that did not happen until 1987.

Cardinal Ratzinger took over the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases, in 1981.

AP says the 1985 correspondence, written in Latin, shows Cardinal Ratzinger saying that Kiesle's removal would need careful review.

Cardinal Ratzinger urged "as much paternal care as possible" for Kiesle.

Kiesle was sentenced to six years in prison in 2004 after admitting molesting a young girl in 1995.

Kiesle is now 63 and is on the registered sex offenders list in California.

Failure to protect the vulnerable by allowing such a person to continue in office implicitly condoned the illusion that this man could be trusted, and yes, amounts to covering up the reality.

In every other sphere of life, whether in the police, the teaching profession or in care homes, etc., serious allegations are met with immediate suspension of duties until the veracity of the allegations has been established.

The fact that this practice has not been followed in the RC church is yet further evidence that the main priority is 'reputation' not child protection.

Though the Cardinal/Pope said as much in the quote above. It's right there, taken from the horse's mouth.

Also, after reading the letter, what I noticed was the use of the expressions "This court", making me think that this letter, although signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, was not a private message to the Oakland Bishop, as implied by the general tone of the article, but an official answer from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a body with 23 members and 33 consulters.

Now this really gets my goat! You are looking to excuse Ratzinger's behaviour by saying he was just one of several signatories. The very fact that he signed it makes him complicit. The fact that he headed that body is the nail in the coffin.

Roman Catholics are taught to revere priests, and the Pope even more so. The truth is that all people are only deserving of respect to the degree that they earn it.

The current crisis is nothing less than the culmination of centuries of institutionalized sexual abuse and subsequent institutional cover-up.

Even the masses in Ireland have woken up to the reality: thousands upon thousands of vulnerable children sent to a priest as 'a man of God' have been systematically abused, and the authorities have consistently not been informed by the clergy who knew what was happening for fear of damaging the reputation of the 'church'. Ratzinger now stands at the fore as the very figurehead of the entire scandal.

"You shall know them by their fruits..."

Originally posted by FortAnthem


Oh, yeah wow, he recommended that the Church hold off on defrocking the priest until a full investigation was done and all the facts were in.


Lets hang him.

It wasn't the first time, wasn't the last time and I have no doubt he KNEW there were priests having sex with children and knew who they were. The way he defends them makes me wonder if he was one of them.

I do not think he should resign. I think he should be sacked and sent to prison. If he is not sacked and Rome falls again so be it. That church does not deserve to exist if it is going to continue committing such evils.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by pause4thought
Failure to protect the vulnerable by allowing such a person to continue in office implicitly condoned the illusion that this man could be trusted, and yes, amounts to covering up the reality.

The reason I not see this as a cover-up is that the Vatican's position in not defrocking this priest looks to me as the same position of the court that thought the priest could be trusted enough not to be imprisoned.

So, if the US courts thought he was not dangerous enough I don't see why it can be considered a cover-up the fact that he was not defrocked.

Yes, it shows that they think more about the church than about the people, but I don't see that as a cover-up, everybody knows that.

In every other sphere of life, whether in the police, the teaching profession or in care homes, etc., serious allegations are met with immediate suspension of duties until the veracity of the allegations has been established.

The fact that this practice has not been followed in the RC church is yet further evidence that the main priority is 'reputation' not child protection.

I agree with that.

Now this really gets my goat! You are looking to excuse Ratzinger's behaviour by saying he was just one of several signatories. The very fact that he signed it makes him complicit. The fact that he headed that body is the nail in the coffin.

Are the judges responsible for the jury's decisions? My understanding of the way the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith works is that it works in the same way as a court of law (although I may be wrong, obviously), so I don't see him as the responsible for that decision, only part of a larger group of men responsible for it.

The fact that I don't like him and the fact that, although baptised, I do not follow his or anyone's religion, doesn't mean that I think he should be accused of something for which he is not really responsible, so I think we should look better at the information that is presented and not judge him too hastily, unless we don't care about being right or wrong.

Roman Catholics are taught to revere priests, and the Pope even more so. The truth is that all people are only deserving of respect to the degree that they earn it.

I never saw that here in Portugal, maybe because I live in a more urban area, but here, as far as I have seen it, Catholics are taught to revere everyone as their brothers and sisters, nobody is above anyone else.

reply to post by pause4thought


You make some good points but your assertion that Roman Catholics are taught to revere Priests and the Pope above all others is simply not correct. This not part of Church doctrine and never has been.

reply to post by Avamarguy


Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was just referring to how Catholics are brought up.

(Mind you, RC doctrine does state that the Pope can actually make "infallible" declarations on matters of faith.)



reply to post by ArMaP


I appreciate your measured response. I'll leave it at that.


[edit on 10/4/10 by pause4thought]

Originally posted by Avamarguy
reply to post by pause4thought

 

You make some good points but your assertion that Roman Catholics are taught to revere Priests and the Pope above all others is simply not correct. This not part of Church doctrine and never has been.

That was exactly what we were taught in the catholic school I went to.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by riley

That was exactly what we were taught in the catholic school I went to.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by riley]

I certainly was not taught that nor were my kids who have each attended Catholic school.

Originally posted by Avamarguy

Originally posted by riley

That was exactly what we were taught in the catholic school I went to.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by riley]

I certainly was not taught that nor were my kids who have each attended Catholic school.

Gee I guess I must have had a less than catholic upbringing by the same roman catholics that do not teach reverence of clerics..

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Avamarguy

Originally posted by riley

That was exactly what we were taught in the catholic school I went to.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by riley]

I certainly was not taught that nor were my kids who have each attended Catholic school.

Gee I guess I must have had a less than catholic upbringing by the same roman catholics that do not teach reverence of clerics..

Whomever taught you that clerics were somehow more holy than everyone else or were to be viewed as something more than the rest of us lacked an understanding of the Catechism.

Do you disagree? Do you believe what you were taught is in agreement with official church teachings? If so, then please point me to the portion of the Catechism that specifies that clergy should be revered above the rest of us.

I'm not questioning that you were taught as you have related in this thread. I am simply telling you that it is in opposition to the Church's own teachings.

Originally posted by Avamarguy

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Avamarguy

Originally posted by riley

That was exactly what we were taught in the catholic school I went to.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by riley]

I certainly was not taught that nor were my kids who have each attended Catholic school.

Gee I guess I must have had a less than catholic upbringing by the same roman catholics that do not teach reverence of clerics..

Whomever taught you that clerics were somehow more holy than everyone else or were to be viewed as something more than the rest of us lacked an understanding of the Catechism.

Do you disagree? Do you believe what you were taught is in agreement with official church teachings? If so, then please point me to the portion of the Catechism that specifies that clergy should be revered above the rest of us.

I'm not questioning that you were taught as you have related in this thread. I am simply telling you that it is in opposition to the Church's own teachings.

I think you just appointed yourself pope above me.

Originally posted by pause4thought

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was just referring to how Catholics are brought up.

(Mind you, RC doctrine does state that the Pope can actually make "infallible" declarations on matters of faith.)

That is not been my experience but if you are correct, then some good will come of this horrendous scandal and that is the realization that there is no conceivable reason to consider a person more holy or closer to God simply because they wear a collar.





[edit on 10-4-2010 by Avamarguy]

Originally posted by riley

I think you just appointed yourself pope above me.

Not at all. I would appreciate it if you answered the questions I posed. I am genuinely curious if you believe that what you were taught is in line with Church Doctrine.

Originally posted by Avamarguy

Originally posted by riley

I think you just appointed yourself pope above me.

Not at all. I would appreciate it if you answered the questions I posed. I am genuinely curious if you believe that what you were taught is in line with Church Doctrine.

As my ancestors knew not converting to Catholicism would have them burnt alive (no thats not teaching reverence ). I was being taught that Jesus believed in equality.. yet I was also taught to kneel or bow at the feet of priests and clergy.. some people even kissed his ring (finger). From prep onwards I was ordered to confess to being a sinner/hell bound when I had not sinned. This was in a forced confession. Is being forced into a dark room against my will in order to denograte myself equality? I would always say "lieing is a sin as well" and I would of course be punnished for it (and I'm still proud I stood my ground). Call a priest father..? I was first taught to call my actual father father.. then I was taught the concept of god and then I was taught to call his messengers "father". That is reverence.. a priest is not on par with my father yet children everywhere are still taught to call priests father.

Are you not taught to honour and respect your father? One of the commandments is: "Honour your mother and father".. it's not an accident that priests get called it.

You are suppose to trust your father not to rape you. If you tell children a priest is just as trustworthy; teach kids about stranger danger yet tell children that stranger in the church is just as safe as dad you are are putting them in danger. That is NOT teaching equality.. and the pope isn't revered? Nonsense.

More reverence.. the photo opf the nun bowing is one example but

www.msnbc.msn.com...
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

The pope said a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease.

The Roman Catholic Church rejects the use of condoms as part of its overall teaching against artificial contraception. Senior Vatican officials have advocated fidelity in marriage and abstinence from premarital sex as key weapons in the fight against AIDS.

22 million infected with HIV
About 22 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are infected with HIV, according to UNAIDS. In 2007, three-quarters of all AIDS deaths worldwide were there, as well as two-thirds of all people living with HIV.

Rebecca Hodes with the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa said if the pope was serious about preventing new HIV infections, he would focus on promoting wide access to condoms and spreading information on how best to use them.

"Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans," said Hodes, head of policy, communication and research for the organization.

He says jump.. a million Africans say how high and he murders them by spouting puritanical ignorance. If they were not taught to revere him they would not opt against wearing condoms and sentencing their spouses to death.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by riley]

Originally posted by Avamarguy

Originally posted by kiwifoot
reply to post by pause4thought

 

I was talking to a friend who is a cannon in the Anglican Church, he seemed to think that it was the Catholic vow of Celibacy that was mostly to blame.

Nonsense. Seriously, you believe that celibacy causes you to be sexually attracted to children? REALLY? You believe that?

That is almost as preposterous as the Church trying to convince everyone that gays are attracted to children.

Er I was going to let this go but then I realised I should actually defend myself!

Did at any point in that post did I agree with what my friend was saying?

Did I say it was MY view?

Were these my opinions?

Please read a persons post before replying in such venomous tones.

Obviously from the op (AGAIN READ OR RE-READ) I am disgusted by this.

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Er I was going to let this go but then I realised I should actually defend myself!

Did at any point in that post did I agree with what my friend was saying?

Did I say it was MY view?

Were these my opinions?

Please read a persons post before replying in such venomous tones.

Obviously from the op (AGAIN READ OR RE-READ) I am disgusted by this.

Absolutely, you are right and I apologize. I read the "I agree completely..." and misunderstood the context. My comments stand but clearly should have been directed to your Anglican friend and not you.