• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Smoking Gun for Ratzinger. That's it!

if anyone, in any way, helps a pedophile stay in a position where they can abuse children, than that person is an accesory to any abusive activity by that pedophile.

Ratzinger, is a criminal.

anyone who bows to, or kisses the hand of, or has a picture of Ratzinger, is honoring a criminal.
 
Covered already, but here's a cite.

I'm personally convinced Dawkins' and Hitchens' attorneys are right. While the law might not have been able to nail Pinochet, (and Kissinger is still on Chile's *hit list), the reality is that justice demands some kind of response, if only to serve notice that the rest of the world thinks people who do this are filth, and deserve punishment.
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it was Charlie (Engine) Wilson in a congressional hearing.
 
Roadtoad said:
Covered already, but here's a cite.

I'm personally convinced Dawkins' and Hitchens' attorneys are right. While the law might not have been able to nail Pinochet, (and Kissinger is still on Chile's *hit list), the reality is that justice demands some kind of response, if only to serve notice that the rest of the world thinks people who do this are filth, and deserve punishment.
Click to expand...

Come now Roadtoad, let's be civilized about this and calmly reason together then hang Pope Peddy.

If we hung him from a cross how could he complain?
 
I can't help wondering what goes on it the heads of the churchmen, do they see the access to kids as a fringe benefit? Some kind of compensation for the celibacy?

Or is it just so widespread that it is close to impossible to find a senior priest that does not have a very personal understanding and therefore show leniency to a fellow paedophile?
 
The good of the church would be to weed out the pedophiles and end its corruption.

If the pope realized this, he would get my respect as a human being doing what's right, not cause of his religious rank.
 
Exactly. How could the Church possibly have been done harm if instead of covering things up, they'd released a public statement saying they truly regretted that sometimes they accidentally let people into the priesthood who should never be there, but that when it was discovered, they would always get rid of them to protect the public, and consequently this man was no longer a priest. That kind of approach would probably gain the Church more respect, not less.
 
Maia said:
...snip...


That's it! You know, I've defended the RCC in a lot of ways, but this is what finally, finally did it for me. They KNEW, and not only did they not do anything, but they actively covered it up, and there's proof that the current pope did it. I don't see how they can weasel out of this one.
Click to expand...

There was more than enough evidence so we could know that both as Cardinal and then as Pope he knew about the extent of sexual abuse and ignored it: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504
 
If you thought it can't get more crazy, take a deep breath:

Hartford, Connecticut (CNN) -- A bill in Connecticut's legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.

Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.
Click to expand...

The full article is here.

Greetings,

Chris
 
What the frack?


The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities," the letter says.
Click to expand...

What? Is child molestation officially on the church's mission statement now?
 
X said:
The one thing in all this mess that never ceases to amaze me is that the Catholic Church has no concept of why people are angry.
Click to expand...
You would be surprised to learn that many of the Laity are outraged by both the crime, and the cover up. In the past few years, any number of them voted with their feet.

I watched that happen in Connecticut about a decade ago, in a local parish, when it became rather obvious to the people that some of their donations to the church were (or so the bookkeeping appeared to show) being used to defend in court, and pay damages from case outcomes, clergymen who betrayed the trust of the Faithful. It came to a head when an expansion to the local church school was in the works, to get delayed as funds dried up, and more donations were solicited. (As I heard this from a member of the parish council, I may not have all the facts, and he may have been only partly correct, but I know how it looked to a lot of the parish).

Some people left, others remained hopeful that the RCC heirarchy would learn from it mistakes and correct its course.

It appears that a course correction, or three, is in order.

Here is an idea: for the good of the Church, if this smoking gun, this letter, tells us that the current Pope materially directed/authorized a cover up on this matter, he would be right to resign, to make his sacrifice ... for the good of the Church that he loves. (Funny, there is something in Scripture about Somebody who sacrificed Himself due to His love for His People ... wonder if Benny has read that part lately ... )

Such a self sacrifice would not be grandstanding.

Why?

It would indicate that the RCC acknowledges its wrong doing (see also sin), and an attempt at penance and reconcilliation will and shall be made.

What a concept: such an action might be consistent with RCC doctrine and dogma. :confused: It would also allow someone involved in a cover up to raise his moral position to at least equal that of Richard M. Nixon ... ;)

It's not like there aren't a few dozen cardinals sitting about who'd make decent popes, or some reasonably talented bishops handy. Popes are mortal. None of them is indispensilble to the Church, but a few might be detrimental to the Church if they stain it. (There is a clever quip from Martin Luther necessary here, but I can't think of what it is at the moment ... )

DR
 
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper said:
That deserves its own thread, a healthy dose of scepticism, and cool heads.
Click to expand...

Feel free to start one. I'm out of ideas for a good thread title that would not constitute a breach of the MA.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: If you still don't have enough, read this article on haaretz.com. Sure, the guy now denies to have made these comments. However, for obvious reasons i think that the church or any of their followers have definitely lost the ability to play the "benefit of doubt" card once and forever.
 
Last edited:
Toke said:
I can't help wondering what goes on it the heads of the churchmen, do they see the access to kids as a fringe benefit? Some kind of compensation for the celibacy?

Or is it just so widespread that it is close to impossible to find a senior priest that does not have a very personal understanding and therefore show leniency to a fellow paedophile?
Click to expand...

Pedophilia doesn't appear to have dirrectly involved many of those in more senior positions. Probably was viewed as something of a barrier to promotion. Thing is prior to the ~70s kiddie fiddling (or whatever the popular pre 70s term was) wasn't view as a serious issue by anyone. Any large organistation that had dealings with children had such issues and they tended to be delt with quietly. However most organisations contained people able to change with social atitudes and had a reasonable staff turnover which meant that they started doing something about the issue when society started to change it's atitudes. The church did not.
 
Last edited:
geni said:
Pedophilia doesn't appear to have dirrectly involved many of those in more senior positions. Probably was viewed as something of a barrier to promotion. Thing is prior to the ~70s kiddie fiddling (or whatever the popular pre 70s term was) wasn't view as a serious issue by anyone. Any large organistation that had dealings with children had such issues and they tended to be delt with quietly. However most organisations contained people able to change with social atitudes and had a reasonable staff turnover which meant that they started doing something about the issue when society started to change it's atitudes. The church did not.
Click to expand...

Or maybe not.
I agree that the issue have been downplayed up until recently, but that could very well mean that the senior staff of the rcc have a very high frequency of paedophiles.
 
Brainache said:
Judge: We find for the defence. The Pope is obviously insane and should be placed in a facility for the treatment of the mentally ill.

Result: The Roman Catholic Church elect a new Pope and the madness continues.

Result: The Pope is sentenced to spend the rest of his years in Vatican City as head of the RCC.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom