Pope's ex-butler gets 18 months in prison for leaking confidential papers

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


The majority is still Roman Catholic, but this Pope is not that popular in Portugal. The fact that he is German may help that sentiment.




posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
Why do you see telling the truth as an act of theft...

I do not, as those are two different things.

Telling the truth is not a crime, obviously, stealing documents is.

To tell the truth he didn't had the need of stealing the documents.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 





Telling the truth is not a crime, obviously, stealing documents is.


I thought he copied documents so that the truth may be told.. It is fair enough if you see that as theft.. But I do not...



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


To me, things are what they are, regardless of the circumstances. If someone takes something that he/she is not supposed to take, that's theft, regardless of the reasons behind that action.

I see it in the same way as self defence, even if someone does something in self defence, that doesn't mean that the person didn't do it.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


This "exposer of evil" stuff is crap.

Why? I don't think it's "crap". The world needs to know what their beloved "Representative of God on Earth" is up to. If he's busy covering up misdeeds and not bringing his shepherds into line, then he's complicit with the atrocities that are ALREADY exposed.

I applaud the butler for going with his conscience rather than kowtowing to TPTB. The Pope is just a man. A fallible man. Capable of sin and making mistakes. Apparently, BIG mistakes. Why do you want to be uninformed about those?





I don't. My point is that every thief is not some sort of warrior for the truth. Do you think that the Watergate burgerlers were out there to expose corruption and thus should be lauded? After all, would you not want to know about corruption amongst your elected representatives?



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Of course I would, and do, want to know. I think your point is that the butler could just as easily have taken the papers in order to assist with covering the Pope's back. Is that correct?

But, as with the kerfuffle over Pvt Manning, that's not why he did it. And, to be honest, if I were in a position to discover and then expose grievous ethical malpractice, I would think very hard about it, and then go with my conscience. I guess "whistleblowers" and "thieves" are of the same ilk? No....on second thought, I don't agree. While a whistleblower can be called a traitor and a thief, if they are acting in good faith that what they're doing is for the GOOD of the larger community, then in my book they are heroes.

"Thieves" are those who take ONLY for their own gain and have no regard for the injury of ANYONE. They are in it only for themselves.

Big difference in my book. It would be interesting to know if the butler was "paid" for the information, or if he really did the noble thing and exposed the documents to the light of day with NO EXPECTATION of anything BUT going to jail. It was still the right thing to do.

It goes to motive. I'm glad that nowadays it's more difficult to keep things secret; on the other hand, it's frightening that equally nefarious levels of "theft" can, in fact, result not in service of justice, but instead HIDE corruption.

I don't know a thing about the butler, I am not Catholic, and I have no dog in this fight EXCEPT for all the people suffering at the hands of the Catholic leaders, whether by direct insult or by negligence and deception.

Perhaps the reaction of the "victim" should be examined most closely of all.
edit on 30-10-2012 by wildtimes because: REVISE THE SENTENCE ABOUT NEFARIOUS THEFT

And then we have the concept of "shredding" and "destroying" evidence. Is that wrong?
edit on 30-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Of course I would, and do, want to know. I think your point is that the butler could just as easily have taken the papers in order to assist with covering the Pope's back. Is that correct?

But, as with the kerfuffle over Pvt Manning, that's not why he did it. And, to be honest, if I were in a position to discover and then expose grievous ethical malpractice, I would think very hard about it, and then go with my conscience. I guess "whistleblowers" and "thieves" are of the same ilk? No....on second thought, I don't agree. While a whistleblower can be called a traitor and a thief, if they are acting in good faith that what they're doing is for the GOOD of the larger community, then in my book they are heroes.

"Thieves" are those who take ONLY for their own gain and have no regard for the injury of ANYONE. They are in it only for themselves.

Big difference in my book. It would be interesting to know if the butler was "paid" for the information, or if he really did the noble thing and exposed the documents to the light of day with NO EXPECTATION of anything BUT going to jail. It was still the right thing to do.

It goes to motive. I'm glad that nowadays it's more difficult to keep things secret; on the other hand, it's frightening that equally nefarious levels of "theft" can, in fact, result not in service of justice, but instead HIDE corruption.

I don't know a thing about the butler, I am not Catholic, and I have no dog in this fight EXCEPT for all the people suffering at the hands of the Catholic leaders, whether by direct insult or by negligence and deception.

Perhaps the reaction of the "victim" should be examined most closely of all.
edit on 30-10-2012 by wildtimes because: REVISE THE SENTENCE ABOUT NEFARIOUS THEFT

And then we have the concept of "shredding" and "destroying" evidence. Is that wrong?
edit on 30-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


He delivered material for the writing of a book. Could it be he was paid to steal the documents? He had a chunk of gold and a rare, 500 year old antique book in his possesion as well. Sounds like a thief out to enrich himself to me.

The watergate burglers broke into the DNC headquarters with the idea of finding documents that would expose corruption in the Democratic party. Do you consider them heroes as well?

You may not have a "dog in this fight" but your comments lead one to believe that you already are certain that the RCC is a corrupt and evil organization. Perhaps one's preconceived notions are what is leading one to laud this thief's actions?

I shred documents all of the time...you should too. Any bank statement, tax record, financial transaction, or anything else you don't need should be shredded, not just thrown out.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You may not have a "dog in this fight" but your comments lead one to believe that you already are certain that the RCC is a corrupt and evil organization. Perhaps one's preconceived notions are what is leading one to laud this thief's actions?

Not preconceived. Evident by simply paying attention. And studying history. The RCC is certainly guilty of corruption and misdeeds by its leaders.

Thanks for participating, though, NavyDoc. When I say I have "no dog", it means I've nothing to lose either way, because I've not put my faith is something or someone who is fallible and clearly hoarding wealth, and taking advantage of (and abusing) the followers.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You may not have a "dog in this fight" but your comments lead one to believe that you already are certain that the RCC is a corrupt and evil organization. Perhaps one's preconceived notions are what is leading one to laud this thief's actions?

Not preconceived. Evident by simply paying attention. And studying history. The RCC is certainly guilty of corruption and misdeeds by its leaders.

Thanks for participating, though, NavyDoc. When I say I have "no dog", it means I've nothing to lose either way, because I've not put my faith is something or someone who is fallible and clearly hoarding wealth, and taking advantage of (and abusing) the followers.


Shrug. We'll never be able to agree on this, I guess. You have already decided RCC is an evil organization, so nothing will convince you otherwise I guess. Agree to disagree as they always say.

As for this guy in particular. He stole documents, gold, and a rare and valuable book. That still puts him in the thief category rather than the whistleblower category. Absent the theft of valuable items, one may have a point, re intentions, but the theft of valuable objects makes his intentions quite clear.

As for the documents, how damning are they? I don't see any sort of proof of evil corrpution. Some unfounded allegations sure, but there are thousands of books of unfounded allegations of various organizations out there. That the RCC is upset that documents were stolen is no evidence of corruption. I would be upset if someone stole my tax returns or other financial records from my office. Wouldn't you?



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

Eau contraire, sir. I'd be happy to be corrected if I have the wrong impression.

If you have evidence that disproves the "apparent" misdeeds of the upper echelons of the RCC, I encourage you to share them. I have no problem with sincere priests, nuns, or parishioners.
Or, shrug, like you said. I'm not sure why you're taking a defensive stance toward the Vatican. So, we'll just let it play itself out, and see what's proven or disproven.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

Eau contraire, sir. I'd be happy to be corrected if I have the wrong impression.

If you have evidence that disproves the "apparent" misdeeds of the upper echelons of the RCC, I encourage you to share them. I have no problem with sincere priests, nuns, or parishioners.
Or, shrug, like you said. I'm not sure why you're taking a defensive stance toward the Vatican. So, we'll just let it play itself out, and see what's proven or disproven.



Ah, you and I both know the logically fallacy of trying to disprove a negative.

One can't deny wrong and corrupt actions in the RCC's history. There were two popes once, the Medici popes who liked to poison rivals for another example, etc. There is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing.

OTOH, there is evidence of doing the right thing...giving Vatican passports to thousands of Jews so they could escape the Nazis for example, speaking out against Communist genocide is another.

Any large organization with a couple thousand year history is going to have good and bad things in its history.

What I doubt is a current and pervasive corrupt organization and a grand evil conspiracy over the ages. Too much like Dan Brown and Jack Chick--more emotion than substance and without any real substance other than the typical conspiracy theories. Of course, this is what ATS is about, which is what makes this place interesting.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


What I doubt is a current and pervasive corrupt organization and a grand evil conspiracy over the ages.

Okay, look.
Dan Brown and Jack Chick are in NO WAY representative of what I believe!! *facepalm*

I don't think the RCC is a "current and pervasive" corrupt organization and "a grand evil conspiracy." I've never thought that. Yes, I have studied the history of Christianity (dare I say, well beyond what the average person has done). The fact remains that atrocities have occurred. In my opinion, "corruption" waxes and wanes with leadership.

The RCC has been exposed for the LACK of ethics and morals among it's "employees," and it's no different than any other government on Earth. Some men and women in the hierarchy are honest and in earnest. OTHERS are corrupt and evil. Same as with any organization that has levels of bureaucracy.

I'm not anti-Catholic, NavyDoc, I'm anti-FRAUD. Anti-hypocrisy, and anti-greed. I hope you will do me the courtesy of not lumping me in with the Jack Chick believers. I'm far, far from it.

Nevertheless, the butler exposed nefarious goings-on on the part of THIS Pope. And with that, I agree.

edit on 30-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


What I doubt is a current and pervasive corrupt organization and a grand evil conspiracy over the ages.

Okay, look.
Dan Brown and Jack Chick are in NO WAY representative of what I believe!! *facepalm*

I don't think the RCC is a "current and pervasive" corrupt organization and "a grand evil conspiracy." I've never thought that. Yes, I have studied the history of Christianity (dare I say, well beyond what the average person has done). The fact remains that atrocities have occurred. In my opinion, "corruption" waxes and wanes with leadership.

The RCC has been exposed for the LACK of ethics and morals among it's "employees," and it's no different than any other government on Earth. Some men and women in the hierarchy are honest and in earnest. OTHERS are corrupt and evil. Same as with any organization that has levels of bureaucracy.

I'm not anti-Catholic, NavyDoc, I'm anti-FRAUD. Anti-hypocrisy, and anti-greed. I hope you will do me the courtesy of not lumping me in with the Jack Chick believers. I'm far, far from it.

Nevertheless, the butler exposed nefarious goings-on on the part of THIS Pope. And with that, I agree.

edit on 30-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


I apologize. I didn't intend that to be a comment about you specifically, just some of the RCC hysteria I have seen in general. I'm sorry if that came across as directed at you rather than as the general observation It was meant to be.




Some men and women in the hierarchy are honest and in earnest. OTHERS are corrupt and evil. Same as with any organization that has levels of bureaucracy.


I agree with the above completely. We've seen the good and we've seen the bad and you are going to get corrupt people in any large organization. As I mentioned before, the Medici popes were some real sociopaths.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
As for this guy in particular. He stole documents, gold, and a rare and valuable book.

The gold and the book are not part of this case, they were found by the police during the search for the documents but were not considered relevant for the case because they were only looking for documents and the butler is supposed to have some gifts for the Pope in his possession.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Nevertheless, the butler exposed nefarious goings-on on the part of THIS Pope. And with that, I agree.

I have yet to see any reference to the Pope in those "nefarious goings-on", could you point some of those to me?
Thanks in advance.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



I have yet to see any reference to the Pope in those "nefarious goings-on", could you point some of those to me?
Thanks in advance.

Nope, I can't!

I started the thread with a headline I found on the web. I am not privy to any of the details.
I've previously listed the "issues" as described in the article{s}.

I'd like an explanation as much as anyone else would.
edit on 30-10-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


That's another funny thing about this case; the book was published, the (supposed) corruption was exposed, but everything remains as it was before.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Well, not really. The butler is in jail, the investigation is ongoing. It will take a lot more than a butler's opinion to get the Vatican overhauled.

Since a lot of it seems to have been "invisible" to the outside world anyway, I doubt we'll know what's going on "inside" without some sort of "Inquisition." A Spanish one, perhaps. No one would expect that! (sorry, couldn't help myself).



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Well, not really. The butler is in jail, the investigation is ongoing. It will take a lot more than a butler's opinion to get the Vatican overhauled.

That's true, I was talking about the corruption situation. And what we have is not the butler's opinion, it's what the journalist that wrote the book published.


Since a lot of it seems to have been "invisible" to the outside world anyway, I doubt we'll know what's going on "inside" without some sort of "Inquisition."

That's the most likely, even if when have two sides on that corruption accusations, I also doubt the other side (it looks like Italian companies are involved) will do anything.


A Spanish one, perhaps. No one would expect that! (sorry, couldn't help myself).






top topics
 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join