Smoking Gun for Ratzinger. That's it!

[I Ratant]

Yes, but at least now we're rid of him. (Actually, here, he was an archbishop. Did he get a promotion when he got moved to California?)

.
It's a work in progress.
Diligent media effort might achieve something here.
(Send him back to you. )

 

[Meadmaker]

It is my view that this kind of mindset makes no such distinction. "What is good for general motors is good for america" is a rather tongue in cheek example from another sphere.

As an aside, I don't know why you call this quote "tongue in cheek". It was uttered by the president of General Motors, and he was quite serious.

 

[Meadmaker]

(While it has been widespread since the beginning of the church, it wasn't made mandatory until some time in the middle ages. 13th century sounds familiar, but I could be wrong.)

By way of correction, I did some research, and I had underestimated just how deep the roots of priestly celibacy were. It's true that it was not absolutely official until the second Lateran Council in the 12th century, but married priests were always the norm, and not the exception, and the few who were married were generally viewed dimly in most times and places. I had thought that it was a gradual adoption, made official in the middle ages.

 

[fuelair]

As a foreign head of state I think the Rat probably enjoys diplomatic immunity.

Perhaps we could declare it an ongoing terror attack by religious extremists on our children and declare war on the Vatican?

It would be worth it just to see what those guys have stored away in the vaults from nearly 2000 years of pillage, er, I mean spreading the good word.

Well, clearly spreading something.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Pope Vows To Get Church Pedophilia Down To Acceptable Levels (satire)

 

[Baby Nemesis]

By way of correction, I did some research, and I had underestimated just how deep the roots of priestly celibacy were. It's true that it was not absolutely official until the second Lateran Council in the 12th century, but married priests were always the norm, and not the exception, and the few who were married were generally viewed dimly in most times and places. I had thought that it was a gradual adoption, made official in the middle ages.

I've found an article about the history of celibacy in the Catholic Church that makes disturbing reading at times. It says there have been lots of married popes, and often their children took over the papacy after them, and some had several illegitimate children; but at the same time, there were several efforts throughout the centuries to enforce celibacy in the priesthood. Apparently from the fourth century onwards, concerns were expressed and decrees made trying to force various religious people to be celibate.

There are some truly disturbing parts of the article. If you think what the current pope did was bad, it's nothing compared to some in the past:

Well into the ninth century, it was reported at the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle that the inhabitants of monasteries and convents were living together and that where the bishops and abbots were trying to enforce celibacy there were a number of abortions and infanticides taking place to cover up these relationships.

St Ulric of Augsburg (890-973) argued that the Holy Scriptures and logic demanded that the only way to purify the western Church from these worst excesses was to continue to allow the clerics to marry. He pointed out "When celibacy is imposed, priests will commit sins far worse than fornication." His letter on this matter was later claimed to be a forgery by the pro-celibacy lobby. Ulric's stand is discussed in Married Priests and the Reforming Papacy: the
11th Century debates.

Pope Benedict IX was elected when he was fifteen years old in 1032 because he was connected with the powerful Counts of Tusculum. He resigned the Papacy in order to marry. ...

When Hildebrand was elected as Pope Gregory VII (AD 1073-1085), he declared, in 1074, that "priests must first escape the clutches of their wives", and then take a pledge of celibacy. But it was Pope Urban II, in 1095, who decided to order that the wives of priests be rounded up and sold into slavery, the money used to boost the Papal finances.

Riots took place in Germany, Italy and France as priests rejected this order. So far, no research has been done on how Ireland reacted to this order. Pope Urban even allowed the nobles to forcibly abduct the wives of priests and sell them into slavery.

When the Count of Veringen took part in this, he found his own wife murdered in her bed. Pope Calixtus II (AD 1119-1124) at the Lateran Council of 1123 decreed that all clerical marries were invalid, a decree later confirmed by Pope Innocent II (1130-1143). But, by the fifteenth Century, it was reported
that 50 per cent of Catholic priests were still married but, of course, this figure actually shows that the long transition from marriage to celibacy had finally begun to take effect. ...

Sold into slavery for the church finances, eh?

The Catholic Church does seem to have been a rather corrupt institution throughout the centuries.

 

[devnull]

The Catholic Church does seem to have been a rather corrupt institution throughout the centuries.

And in other news, the sun is hot.

 

[Soapy Sam]

This is a global organisation, based on the opinion that a man in the sky made the universe in a week, that a bloke nailed to a cross by Roman troops, got better and that unmarried men should give family planning counsel to parents, completely avoid sexual gratification and at the same time stand in loco parentis towards children.

And yet we are surprised to find that some of it's staff are out of touch with reality?

 

[Baby Nemesis]

And in other news, the sun is hot.

Not where I live it isn't. Perhaps you could help with that.

------

If the Catholic hierarchy ever wanted to introduce marriage for priests, they'd have scriptural backing. This, for example:

1 Timothy chapter 3 (TEV)

2 A church leader must be without fault;
he must have only one wife,
be sober, self-controlled, and orderly;
he must welcome strangers in his home;
he must be able to teach;
3 he must not be a drunkard or a violent man, but gentle and peaceful;
he must not love money;
4 he must be able to manage his own family well and make his children obey him with all respect. 5 For if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of the church of God?

--------

I think the main argument for celibacy is that an unmarried man can devote all his time to caring for parishioners, and also not be a financial burden to them beyond his own needs, whereas the time of a married priest will be divided between caring for the welfare of his parishioners and that of his family so he won't be able to spend so much time caring for parishioners, and he'll want the church to financially support his family as well as himself. Still, in parts of the world where the Catholic doctrine on family planning is more lenient, that shouldn't be so much of a problem. And it can be argued that interacting with a wife and family could give a priest more insight on how to help solve the problems of his married parishioners who come to him for counselling.

 

[Toke]

As far as I know the main reason for insisting on priest celibacy were to avoid loss of church property as inheritance.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think the main argument for celibacy is that an unmarried man can devote all his time to caring for parishioners,.

I've heard that, but I think the actual argument is slightly different. It's not just his time caring for parishoners. It's his whole focus and thought being directed toward God and/or the Church, without distraction. A married man will put his family first. The Church wants him to put the Chuch first. (Oh...uhhh....I mean God first, and the Church second. Yeah, that's it.)

For example, if a new priest is needed for a parish in Poughkepsie (sp?), right now a bishop can call up a priest in Schenectady and tell him to move. OK, boss. No problem. Suppose, though, that were a married man he was talking to. All of a sudden his wife would be up in arms that the kids would have to be pulled out of school and she wasn't going to move and you tell that bishop that you aren't moving.

Not to mention just the fact that priests are expected to spend large amounts of time doing nothing but prayer and meditation. Do you think a guy with two children under 6 is going to spend four hours a day chanting rosaries?

Of course, the problem with this total devotion system is that it's totally abnormal and unnatural. Normal people want to have sex partners, mates, and some sort of family life, usually including children. By insisting on clerical celibacy, the Church is creating a bizarre situation where only people who are a little bit off ever join in this system. Then, they tell them that any outlet for sexual urges is sinful, which adds even more anxiety to their situation.

I think more and more people are starting to understand just how bad the whole system is. Also, the most common aspect of sexuality that people had to hide from in days past is homosexuality. It has been understood for a while that a large percentage of priests are gay, although church leaders don't like to talk about it. As it becomes more acceptable to be gay, fewer people are finding the need to hide from their sexuality and seek refuge in the priesthood or a convent, and it's getting harder to fill the ranks of priests, and there just aren't nearly as many nuns as there used to be.

Of course, pedophilia is still unacceptable, so guess who joins the priesthood?

Then, people expect clergy to help with problems in family life, and more and more people are realizing that some guy who voluntarily gave up family life might have a hard time offering sound advice. (Aside: Bill Maher once said, "What's up with 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.' If I wanted a gay guy in queeny clothes telling me how to live my life, I could just go to Mass.) This makes parishoners less likely to support the structure of the Church, because they see less value in it.

For all these reasons, I think priestly celibacy's days are numbered. Of course, these things take time. The Roman Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years, plus or minus a century or two in the organizational phase. It might take another century or so to make a change so big.

 

[Complexity]

The Roman Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years, plus or minus a century or two in the organizational phase.

I always suspected the bastards were lurking in the shadows, waiting around until a guy was killed that they could center their nasty business about. Opportunistic sluts.

May they soon disappear from the face of the earth.

 

[Ladewig]

He is not REALLY protecting the pedophile, he is just saying (rightfully) that going public will have a negative effect on both the priest and the church and that must be taken into consideration.
Maybe he just called for a diligent fool-proof inquiry, to make sure not to punish an innocent? [/apologetist]

Did you read the details of the case? The priest admitted in public that he tied up two boys and molested them! The priest asked to leave the RCC! The head of the dioceses wrote a letter saying that "returning Kiesle to ministry would cause more of a scandal than stripping him of his priestly powers." It took six years for the priest to be defrocked and during that time he worked with other kids.

If there ever was a case where a priest should be removed from office, this is it. There was no rational reason to drag his feet. As it stands, it is inexcusable. If Benedict XVI has a defense he should present it rather than hiding behind press releases that say the Vatican doesn't have to respond to every accusation made.

 

[pgwenthold]

As much as I'd love to see this be the death-blow to the Catholic Church as we know it, I don't think much is going to come to it.

My ultra-Catholic father blames this matter on the notion "that "faggots" have been let into the preisthood."

If that is the case, then why would your father defend someone in the church who tried to prevent those "faggots" from getting booted out?

I would think that your father should also be upset with Ratzingberger for not booting the "faggots" out when he got a chance.

Unless your father thinks that these "faggots" are desirable, then still Ratzinberger failed.

 

[154]

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Matthew 23:1-9


It almost seems, and you might think, that He had a specific reason and some particular people in mind with that last verse.

So how about calling a man Holy Father?

 

[Meadmaker]

My ultra-Catholic father blames this matter on the notion "that "faggots" have been let into the preisthood."

I think more and more people are realizing that if you got rid of the "faggots", you wouldn't have many priests left. I'll bet at least half of all priests are gay, although I don't know how you would prove or disprove that assertion.

 

[Christian Klippel]

At this point; I wonder why nobody asked the Hague's tribunal to look into this

Not the Hague's tribunal, but Dawkins and Hitchens are trying to do something:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0410/judge-calls-prosecution-pope-benedict/

Let's hope that they will have success with that.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Toke]

Let's hope that they will have success with that.

Yes, having the pope arrested and incarnated may force a change in the church's attitude to children.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Yes, having the pope arrested and incarnated may force a change in the church's attitude to children.

At least it would show them that they are not above the law, or untouchable, or anything like that. That they are responsible for their actions (or non-actions, in this sad case).

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Complexity]

Yes, having the pope arrested and incarnated may force a change in the church's attitude to children.

I'm afraid that the 'pope' has been incarnate for some time. Would that it were otherwise.

I would welcome his arrest and subsequent beheading. Hangin's too good for the likes of him.