Now Pope linked to child abuse cover-up

Ultravid

raindog.promo wrote: »

Oops.

I appear to have stumbled into a religious or philosophical forum when I was actually seeking a politics forum.

I wouldn't call this discussion political in nature.

peasant

Ultravid wrote: »

I wouldn't call this discussion political in nature.

That's because you try to drag it into the spiritual corner.
Fact of the matter is, the issue at the core of this discussion, the abuse of minors, is and should be a legal (and therefore political) issue.
It doesn't matter who is doing the abuse, you, me or a priest ...nobody should be outside the law.

Despite the way it sees and defines itself, the church is not sole moral authority on this planet, it has to operate within society and its laws, not outside.
Especially so if those laws actually confirm its basic principles.

thebman

Ultravid wrote: »

I wouldn't call this discussion political in nature.

Because your trying to defend the church and at a political/legal/moral level they haven't a leg to stand on may be?

The only way it can be even attempted to be spun away is by trying to make it a spiritual discussion or to try to make it out to be a church issue when it is in fact a political/social issue that effects everybody in society.

I don't think there is any spinning possible that can make the church look like it has behaved appropriately on this matter. Members of the church have been shown to be involved in one way or another from top to the bottom of the organization.

bmaxi

Ultravid wrote: »

The true Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, which has the successor of Peter as its earthly head.

I would see it the other way around.

anymore

Ultravid wrote: »

The true Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, which has the successor of Peter as its earthly head.

Why must so much religiuous stuff be in this gobbly de gook nonsensical langauage ?

bmaxi

anymore wrote: »

Why must so much religiuous stuff be in this gobbly de gook nonsensical langauage ?

If it was written in plain language then plebs like you and I would be able to see it for what it is. One major issue at the time of the Reformation was that the Bible be written in the vernacular, this was opposed by the Church.
My personal belief is, the Church, like the legal profession, needs to keep up a facade of mystery, otherwise Joe Soap would dismiss it as drivel. Would he be wrong?

anymore

Strip away all the religous titles and pious language and what you are left with is a powerful wealthy global corporation whose head and chief executives protected and facilitated some of of its employees who were using their position as trusted company employees to sexually abuse children and this cover up was carried on for years and even extended to forcing complaining children to sign oaths htey would not disclose the abuse outside of the company.
Solution ? Put the company into liquidation.

jennyjest

anymore wrote: »

Strip away all the religous titles and pious language and what you are left with is a powerful wealthy global corporation whose head and chief executives protected and facilitated some of of its employees who were using their position as trusted company employees to sexually abuse children and this cover up was carried on for years and even extended to forcing complaining children to sign oaths htey would not disclose the abuse outside of the company.
Solution ? Put the company into liquidation.

Hey would there be a Liquidation sale ?

Outrage

anymore wrote: »

Strip away all the religous titles and pious language and what you are left with is a powerful wealthy global corporation whose head and chief executives protected and facilitated some of of its employees who were using their position as trusted company employees to sexually abuse children and this cover up was carried on for years and even extended to forcing complaining children to sign oaths htey would not disclose the abuse outside of the company.
Solution ? Put the company into liquidation.

Typical Irish begrudgery of other people's wealth.

Outrage

goat2 wrote: »

if the pope has been involved in the cover up, he should step down, let someone honest take the seat,
i have not gone to mass with the last month because of all of this, how could i listen to someone who belong to a club of abusers, liars, beggers, thieves,
when the person they claim to represent lived a life without luxuries, assets huge assets, palatal homes,
it is all over

You're screwed if you think the Protestants/Muslims/Jews/Sheiks live any differently. Perhaps Chairman Mao might be more up your street? He always wore a boiler suit...

jennyjest

Outrage wrote: »

Typical Irish begrudgery of other people's wealth.

You definitley got that right honey ! All that wealth accumulated came from other people !

Outrage

jennyjest wrote: »

You definitley got that right honey ! All that wealth accumulated came from other people !

They're called the faithful. Honourable people who left their estates and established trust funds for the eternal mission of the Church.

I'm guessing you fit into the begrudger category then eh?

Noffles

Outrage wrote: »

They're called the faithful. Honourable people who left their estates and established trust funds for the eternal mission of the Church.

I'm guessing you fit into the begrudger category then eh?

And what exactly is the eternal mission then... spreading fictitious lies about ghosts and goblins... the good and the evil? Must be a bastard of a job to do, working from a book that Stephen King could of written while trying to hide the fact that the "real" evil is the one delivering the *cough" sermon... haha... gullible plebs every single one of you followers!!!!!

It's difficult for me to even contemplate this... but if there is a day of judgement, just like you always harp on about, you lot, followers, priests and high grand lobster or whatever they call themselves are royally ****ed!!!!

jennyjest

Outrage wrote: »

They're called the faithful. Honourable people who left their estates and established trust funds for the eternal mission of the Church.

I'm guessing you fit into the begrudger category then eh?

Well honey I know an elderly couple in their ninties who were contributing to the Church's coffers; in fact they seem to be so generous that their son decided it was time he started writing the cheques for the church dues and give just would be what he judges to be a normal amount.
To be honest I find it hard to see why a church would be looking for contributions of any kind from elderly people.

darraghwhite

This is my first ever post on Boards, I don't usually post but i'm so mad listening to the radio coverage today talking about whether cardinal sean brady should have contacted the police or not.... HE MADE THE VICTIMS SWEAR TO KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT!!!! When there's a bank robbery, do we question whether the getaway driver should have gone to the police if he had knowledge of a crime. Its ludicrous. And don't give me this "he was just a clerk taking notes" he was a 35 year old man with a doctorate in law, taking on a bunch of kids who had been raped and buggered by his colleagues and threatening them with hell and damnation if they grassed. I couldn't give a toss if he resigns I want him to go to jail, the church is a mafia and the sooner people wake up and see it the better!

Outrage

darraghwhite wrote: »

This is my first ever post on Boards, I don't usually post but i'm so mad listening to the radio coverage today talking about whether cardinal sean brady should have contacted the police or not.... HE MADE THE VICTIMS SWEAR TO KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT!!!! When there's a bank robbery, do we question whether the getaway driver should have gone to the police if he had knowledge of a crime. Its ludicrous. And don't give me this "he was just a clerk taking notes" he was a 35 year old man with a doctorate in law, taking on a bunch of kids who had been raped and buggered by his colleagues and threatening them with hell and damnation if they grassed. I couldn't give a toss if he resigns I want him to go to jail, the church is a mafia and the sooner people wake up and see it the better!

Pax.

darraghwhite

Well it's a start I suppose.:)

Blackhorse Slim

goat2 wrote: »

if the pope has been involved in the cover up, he should step down, let someone honest take the seat

You mean... someone from outside the church? :eek:

Kiwi_knock

Outrage, as a fellow Christian I know certain points made in this thread have been annoying to read but do not label everyone who posts anti Catholic points as bigots. Some are trying to post valid points, do not outright dismiss their views. The Church will never recover if we do not take onboard the criticism. Please do listen to some of their points, do not outright dismiss them, it will not help anyone

goat2

Outrage wrote: »

You're screwed if you think the Protestants/Muslims/Jews/Sheiks live any differently. Perhaps Chairman Mao might be more up your street? He always wore a boiler suit...

i was not worried about the others, but i am worried that i am one of the many who financed this organisation by giving to the box every sunday, i still have the same belief in my faith, now the difference is i do not believe in these shephards of god

Ultravid

Munich, Germany, Mar 17, 2010 / 03:35 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Tourism chaplain for the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising has been immediately suspended from ministry after more allegations that he sexual abused minors. While some news reports have tried to link Pope Benedict XVI to the charges, a subordinate in the archdiocese has claimed responsibility for failures in responding to the case.

A statement from the archdiocese said that it had been presented with evidence the clergyman committed sexual abuse since an episode in 1986.

...

Some media reports have tried to link Pope Benedict XVI to the scandal because he was Archbishop of Munich and Freising between 1977 and 1982.

Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See's Press Office, released a statement on Saturday morning on the issue. He said that a recent communiqué from the Archdiocese of Munich answers questions about Priest H. He stressed that the document shows that as archbishop the future Pope Benedict was completely "extraneous" to the decisions made after the abuses were verified.

You can read the full story here:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/accused_munich_priest_resigns_in_sexual_abuse_case_wrongly_linked_to_pope/

OS119

Ultravid wrote: »

Munich, Germany, Mar 17, 2010 / 03:35 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Tourism chaplain for the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising has been immediately suspended from ministry after more allegations that he sexual abused minors. While some news reports have tried to link Pope Benedict XVI to the charges, a subordinate in the archdiocese has claimed responsibility for failures in responding to the case.

A statement from the archdiocese said that it had been presented with evidence the clergyman committed sexual abuse since an episode in 1986.

...

Some media reports have tried to link Pope Benedict XVI to the scandal because he was Archbishop of Munich and Freising between 1977 and 1982.

Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See's Press Office, released a statement on Saturday morning on the issue. He said that a recent communiqué from the Archdiocese of Munich answers questions about Priest H. He stressed that the document shows that as archbishop the future Pope Benedict was completely "extraneous" to the decisions made after the abuses were verified.

You can read the full story here:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/accused_munich_priest_resigns_in_sexual_abuse_case_wrongly_linked_to_pope/

and i'm entirely sure that he hadn't been leaned on at all m'lud - its quite possible that old Ratzinger had nothing to do with this paedo being given a free ticket to shag kiddies - but perhaps getting some low-level priest in Germany to completely absolve him of responsiblity - 'it woz me guv'nor, i did it all and no mistake' - and then having said statement distributed through the good offices of the Holy See's press office, isn't the most convincing evidence...

Ultravid

OS119 wrote: »

and i'm entirely sure that he hadn't been leaned on at all m'lud - its quite possible that old Ratzinger had nothing to do with this paedo being given a free ticket to shag kiddies - but perhaps getting some low-level priest in Germany to completely absolve him of responsiblity - 'it woz me guv'nor, i did it all and no mistake' - and then having said statement distributed through the good offices of the Holy See's press office, isn't the most convincing evidence...

Some people are not prepared to be convinced. They've already made up their minds.:rolleyes:

The priest concerned was not low-level; he was a VG. Read the story again.

Fr Z has comment over at his blog: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/how-to-write-a-news-piece-on-the-german-abuse-scandal-and-the-popes-involvement/

OS119

Ultravid wrote: »

Some people are not prepared to be convinced. They've already made up their minds.:rolleyes:

The priest concerned was not low-level; he was a VG. Read the story again.

Fr Z has comment over at his blog: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/how-to-write-a-news-piece-on-the-german-abuse-scandal-and-the-popes-involvement/

i did read the story, several versions of it - they varied from 'Ratzinger never saw the case so can't be held responsible', to 'Ratzinger approved it', to Ratzinger vaguely knew about it but lost interest'.

i accept entirely that as the senior body in a large organisation Ratzinger cannot possibly be expected to either know, or sign off on everything that organisation does, and that individuals within that organisation could impliment their own policies and remain entirely untouched because no one else had the time or inclination to come poking into their domain. however, the way this particular denial has come about is not convincing - it looks like low hanging friut has been leaned on by his boss the make a statement that absolves his boss of any responsibility.

and yeah, compared to the Pope, he's low-level...

Ultravid

OS119 wrote: »

i did read the story, several versions of it - they varied from 'Ratzinger never saw the case so can't be held responsible', to 'Ratzinger approved it', to Ratzinger vaguely knew about it but lost interest'.

i accept entirely that as the senior body in a large organisation Ratzinger cannot possibly be expected to either know, or sign off on everything that organisation does, and that individuals within that organisation could impliment their own policies and remain entirely untouched because no one else had the time or inclination to come poking into their domain. however, the way this particular denial has come about is not convincing - it looks like low hanging friut has been leaned on by his boss the make a statement that absolves his boss of any responsibility.

and yeah, compared to the Pope, he's low-level...

The Pope was not the Pope when this incident took place - he was Archbishop. Vicar General was a position of service to the Archbishop, assuming responsibility for many important matters.

Hagar

Ultravid wrote: »

The Pope was not the Pope when this incident took place

I beg to differ, the Pope was always the Pope, his name changes but his responsibility doesn't. John Paul II was just as implicated in the covering up of this as the current office holder.

You have just opened another can of worms, you going to need a much bigger can now if you hope to put the lid back on.

OS119

Ultravid wrote: »

The Pope was not the Pope when this incident took place - he was Archbishop. Vicar General was a position of service to the Archbishop, assuming responsibility for many important matters.

he's the pope when this guy came out of the woodwork to defend him.

are you denying that there is a power relationship between the two men, probably a reasonably close personal relationship - and that the Vicar General has an interest (though not necceasarily a personal interest) in ensuring that any flak from this issue is kept well away from the current Pope?

were this a political scandal, and a former private secretary to a minister - now a senior civil servant - issued a press statement through the Taoiseach's office to defend his former minister - now Taoiseach - over an event that happen many years ago while they were in the same department, would you you not detect the faintest whiff of somebody being 'encouraged' to remember events in a certain way for the benefit of the current Taoiseach?

wouldn't that even cross your mind?

Ultravid

OS119 wrote: »

he's the pope when this guy came out of the woodwork to defend him.

are you denying that there is a power relationship between the two men, probably a reasonably close personal relationship - and that the Vicar General has an interest (though not necceasarily a personal interest) in ensuring that any flak from this issue is kept well away from the current Pope?

were this a political scandal, and a former private secretary to a minister - now a senior civil servant - issued a press statement through the Taoiseach's office to defend his former minister - now Taoiseach - over an event that happen many years ago while they were in the same department, would you you not detect the faintest whiff of somebody being 'encouraged' to remember events in a certain way for the benefit of the current Taoiseach?

wouldn't that even cross your mind?

Like I said, even if this official version were true, would you accept it? No? So it really doesn't matter what anyone says about these things. Even if Church leaders are truthful, it still isn't enough for the media and others. They have their own plan for how things should pan out. *sigh*

LostinKildare

The Church cannot be trusted. They made that bed themselves with their abuses, lies, cover ups, outrageous denials of responsibility, haughty and callous indifference to the damage they've done. A child has a more developed sense of moral responsibility than some of these church officials seem to have.

They have no credibility anymore, and it is their own fault.

anymore

Ultravid wrote: »

Munich, Germany, Mar 17, 2010 / 03:35 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Tourism chaplain for the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising has been immediately suspended from ministry after more allegations that he sexual abused minors. While some news reports have tried to link Pope Benedict XVI to the charges, a subordinate in the archdiocese has claimed responsibility for failures in responding to the case.

A statement from the archdiocese said that it had been presented with evidence the clergyman committed sexual abuse since an episode in 1986.

...

Some media reports have tried to link Pope Benedict XVI to the scandal because he was Archbishop of Munich and Freising between 1977 and 1982.

Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See's Press Office, released a statement on Saturday morning on the issue. He said that a recent communiqué from the Archdiocese of Munich answers questions about Priest H. He stressed that the document shows that as archbishop the future Pope Benedict was completely "extraneous" to the decisions made after the abuses were verified.

You can read the full story here:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/accused_munich_priest_resigns_in_sexual_abuse_case_wrongly_linked_to_pope/

Even an RTE religous correspondent on tonight's news said that Bernard Law had been promoted to the vatican, so this new ' fall guy' can expect something as well.