Is the Pope a criminal?

[Jesus]

I can't believe there are guys on this forum that are, by proxy, attempting to protect the pope (and church?) or lessen the seriousness of the child abuse by attacking the motives of his accusers. He, and his church have millions of accusers wanting those inside the church (all denominations)  to be held accountable.  Do we all have dark motives? If by attempting to charge the pope, and there is growing evidence he was complicit as a cardinal in his knowledge of crimes, attention to can be drawn to the official cover ups and denials by the church in protecting their reputation, and force structural change so it stops, then go hard. Very hard.

There is a difference between "cover ups", and "sweeping under the carpet", and the pope raping kids and inviting others to do the same.

Thats just politics and bureaucracy. No different than you will find in any corporation/govt etc that has any interest in its own image

 

[Jesus]

I can't believe there are guys on this forum that are, by proxy, attempting to protect the pope (and church?) or lessen the seriousness of the child abuse by attacking the motives of his accusers. He, and his church have millions of accusers wanting those inside the church (all denominations)  to be held accountable.  Do we all have dark motives? If by attempting to charge the pope, and there is growing evidence he was complicit as a cardinal in his knowledge of crimes, attention to can be drawn to the official cover ups and denials by the church in protecting their reputation, and force structural change so it stops, then go hard. Very hard.

Read the posts again and tell me where the pope is being defended or that the abuse suffered by many youngsters was lessened??  Stretch much?

The motives of the accusers should be questioned because he stands to gain much by having this type of publicity.

Exactly. The points are

1. The accusers in the article have their own self interest at heart, with their own crusade against religions.
2. Legally it would be near impossible for anything to ever happen more that has already with regards to the pope.

 

[scottmac]

A Vatican lawyer said that it was the local bishop, John Cummins of Oakland, California, who bore primary responsibility for protecting children from the abusive priest, and that the Pope had acted appropriately when he declined to take action.

''It's the job of the bishop to discipline the priest,'' said the lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, of Berkeley, California, in an email to the Los Angeles Times. ''The Pope is not a five-star general ordering his troops around. That is simply an incorrect idea about the allocation of authority as between the Pope and his fellow bishops.''

In the letter, Cardinal Ratzinger - who was at the time the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has responsibility for tackling abuse by clerics - said the ''good of the universal church'' needed to be considered in any defrocking.

Mr Kiesle was ultimately defrocked in 1987. In 2004, he was sentenced to six years in prison after admitting molesting a young girl in 1995. Now aged 63, he is on the registered sex offenders list in California.

The Vatican says the Pope was exercising due caution before sacking the priest.

The decision not to defrock Father Gallanagh is likely to prove embarrassing for the church in Britain, which has until now escaped being dragged into the crisis that has engulfed the church in several countries.

Telegraph, London, Los Angeles Times

There is no way that this action will bear a result so why do it?

To bring further attention to the history of not being held accountable for numerous crimes, the covering of those crimes and the allowance of known perpetrators to continue.

Bullshit. Dawkins can't disprove the Gospel so he needs to create exacerbate an outlet for negativity against the church to give his theory's validity.

 

[curious]

Tell me please, mr jesus and scottmac, is it the proposal by the two atheists in particular to attempt to have the pope charged that irks you, is it the accusations that irks you, or is it the accusations of abuse  that you don't agree with? If there is proof the pope, as a cardinal, was aware of the abuse and assisted in it's hushing, do you think he should be accountable for his actions?

Do you both think those that knowingly assisted criminals by hushing crimes and allowing crimes to continue through inaction, should be held accountable, be they priests, bishops, cardinals or a layperson? Have either of you had anything to do with an abusive clergy, the lengths a church will go to in protection of their clergy, their church and the end justifies the means methods in attempting to destroy the credibility of a victim and therefore the accusation?

 

[scottmac]

Tell me please, mr jesus and scottmac, is it the proposal by the two atheists in particular to attempt to have the pope charged that irks you, is it the accusations that irks you, or is it the accusations of abuse  that you don't agree with? If there is proof the pope, as a cardinal, was aware of the abuse and assisted in it's hushing, do you think he should be accountable for his actions?

Do you both think those that knowingly assisted criminals by hushing crimes and allowing crimes to continue through inaction, should be held accountable, be they priests, bishops, cardinals or a layperson? Have either of you had anything to do with an abusive clergy, the lengths a church will go to in protection of their clergy, their church and the end justifies the means methods in attempting to destroy the credibility of a victim and therefore the accusation?

The charge against the pope would be that he new of the offense and did nothing when it wasn't up to him to do anything. It was the responsibility of the local bishop to reprimand the priest by expelling him or whatever. for the third time now in this thread, the vatican would never have appointed this man pope if there was even the slightest chance that he could be embroiled in such a scandel legally.

What irks me is that Dawkins decides to bring massive public charges against the pope with no chance of success or any chance of assisting victims whatsoever. It will not cause guilty peadophiles to stand trial, or gain any compensation or apology to anyone that has suffered abuse.

I agree that members of the clergy who have committed criminal acts should be held accountable by law. Not held accountable by the self serving interests of an author who stands to gain much by this type of action.

 

[curious]

You didn't answer the questions posted once again below, btw. They don't relate to the pope.


Do you both think those that knowingly assisted criminals by hushing crimes and allowing crimes to continue through inaction, should be held accountable, be they priests, bishops, cardinals or a layperson? Have either of you had anything to do with an abusive clergy, the lengths a church will go to in protection of their clergy, their church and the end justifies the means methods in attempting to destroy the credibility of a victim and therefore the accusation?

 

[midfielder]

Gotta agree that Dawkins is after media pages to help sell his book...

Further I believe as Scotty said ..."

members of the clergy who have committed criminal acts should be held accountable by law. Not held accountable by the self serving interests of an author who stands to gain much by this type of action

.

Additionally a lot of what organised religion has done/ does do / is doing is wrong... But in the grand scheme of things they do a lot of good things as well... I guess like football in the NSL days it's only the riot that makes the papers ...

 

[scottmac]

You didn't answer the questions posted once again below, btw. They don't relate to the pope.


Do you both think those that knowingly assisted criminals by hushing crimes and allowing crimes to continue through inaction, should be held accountable, be they priests, bishops, cardinals or a layperson? Have either of you had anything to do with an abusive clergy, the lengths a church will go to in protection of their clergy, their church and the end justifies the means methods in attempting to destroy the credibility of a victim and therefore the accusation?

I'm sorry i didn't realise that in a thread titled "is the pope a criminal" i was required to answer your quasi related questions.

You can take your own crusade and start a new thread.

 

[curious]

Careful when dodging, your halo could slip down and choke you. 

 

[Jesus]

Tell me please, mr jesus and scottmac, is it the proposal by the two atheists in particular to attempt to have the pope charged that irks you, is it the accusations that irks you, or is it the accusations of abuse  that you don't agree with? If there is proof the pope, as a cardinal, was aware of the abuse and assisted in it's hushing, do you think he should be accountable for his actions?

Do you both think those that knowingly assisted criminals by hushing crimes and allowing crimes to continue through inaction, should be held accountable, be they priests, bishops, cardinals or a layperson? Have either of you had anything to do with an abusive clergy, the lengths a church will go to in protection of their clergy, their church and the end justifies the means methods in attempting to destroy the credibility of a victim and therefore the accusation?

Those 2 are about publicity. They care nothing for those who were wronged and only for selling more books. It is a witch hunt, and literally nothing more than an attack on a religion. I dont think they give 2 shits about the victims. If there wasnt religious overtones, they would not be doing anything about it.

Are you a victim?

Are you claiming that the church does more harm than good?

Are you claiming that the pope is a criminal?

I have been punched in the head. Yet not reported the crime to police. Am I a criminal?

Why is it that someone should be held accountable for the job of another? The education minister does not try people accused of indeciency as teachers. The panel below him somewhere do. He will keep things quiet unless he is asked to act by those whose job it is.

Priests, like teachers, like public servants, like anyone, who commit rapes etc all face the law. But they are pulling long bows to try and say that anyone who knows about something is forced to do something.

This is nothing more than selling books. Did the pope do something morally he shouldnt have, thats for him to decide, not me, nor you, nor a couple of atheiest witch hunters.

If he did something against the law the police would be saying we would like to talk to him.

The pope has immunity as head of state, but since the police are not calling for, not even interviews, yet alone his head, this is a massive publicity stunt, and if i was one of the abused, I would be disgraced by them making a mockary of my circumstance IMO.

 

[Jesus]

You didn't answer the questions posted once again below, btw. They don't relate to the pope.


Do you both think those that knowingly assisted criminals by hushing crimes and allowing crimes to continue through inaction, should be held accountable, be they priests, bishops, cardinals or a layperson? Have either of you had anything to do with an abusive clergy, the lengths a church will go to in protection of their clergy, their church and the end justifies the means methods in attempting to destroy the credibility of a victim and therefore the accusation?

And i can tell you all clergyman i have known, and my family have known, and all clergy men of different faiths and creeds, have been very good, honest decent people. Living lives far cleaner than I could ever hope to.

The % of priests would be similar to that of the general community I would think. And like elseweher, people would choose to enter the priesthood, or teaching, or child minding etc for that preditory purpose.

But that does not mean that the vast majority of priests, teachers etc are not very good, very decent people.

 

[scottmac]

Careful when dodging, your halo could slip down and choke you. 

What good will it do you to hear my answers for any of the questions you posted?
Does my opinion or experiences on the points you raise have anything to do with the article in post #1? Only if the pope was found guilty and let off would your questions be relevant.

Your opinion and experience does not count as reality for the whole. Take your blinkers off.

 

[curious]

Are you a victim?

With such a personal question, face to face i'd likely see red, tell you to mind your own business before splitting your lip, help you up, then split the other lip.
However, seeing as it would obviously effect one's thinking in this matter, the answer is yes, along with several peers. All of us alter boys, and likely before you were born. The only questions asked for decades were the questions asked of ourselves. Why would a priest be wrong, the one person we had been told since we were old enough to listen was never to be questioned, should have our ultimate respect and one who's word was gospel, literally.
If asked to walk through fire, do it with a smile on your face knowing it must be the right thing to do of course, because the priest knows best. To question his word was to question your own faith. Quite scary, for a kid.

As one gets older, with an older head capable of independent thought, he learns to question his former perceptions and that in fact, you weren't wrong to have fear of a priest and doubt his word. You feel like a stupid fool for allowing yourself to be believe unquestioned. You realise the way fear was used to make one helpless and the guilt that keeps the lips zipped for many years. You learn how vicious the church can be in discrediting an accuser.  You learn that many will still blame you as a liar or instigator, in preference to facing the truth.  Many still make excuses, blame the messenger or see, hear and speak no evil. You learn to despise the reality of organised religion and those in it with myopic opinions.

Are you claiming that the church does more harm than good?

In my case and many, many others, most certainly. In other cases, most certainly not. The good doesn't cancel the bad and vice versa. Obviously.

Are you claiming that the pope is a criminal?

I'm saying (as you read) that he should be held accountable if he assisted in covering up a crime to protect the reputation of the church and allowing a  continuance of crimes when in a position of authority that enabled to prevent it. Do your research, please. He was directly responsible for a minimum of two such cases. 

I have been punched in the head. Yet not reported the crime to police. Am I a criminal?

That analogy is terrible and doesn't deserve an answer.

Why is it that someone should be held accountable for the job of another? The education minister does not try people accused of indeciency as teachers. The panel below him somewhere do. He will keep things quiet unless he is asked to act by those whose job it is.

One should be held accountable for those you have authority over, those that answer to you and those that must follow your direction. Passing the buck is not only cowardly and immoral, it's damn well unchristian.

Priests, like teachers, like public servants, like anyone, who commit rapes etc all face the law. But they are pulling long bows to try and say that anyone who knows about something is forced to do something.

Obviously you aren't aware of the official protocol of teachers. Even a suspicion of a problem, over hearing student gossip for example, must be verbally reported and a written incident report recorded. It must be passes on to child and community services if involving a student to student or social welfare incident, or passed on to police if an allegation involving a staff member. It's the responsibility of the principle to make sure staff protocol is followed, the responsibility of the education dept. to make sure principles police protocol, and the responsibility of the education minister to make sure the education dept. enforces the government's policies.

This is nothing more than selling books. Did the pope do something morally he shouldnt have, thats for him to decide, not me, nor you, nor a couple of atheiest witch hunters.

For him to decide? I cannot believe an adult could still be so gullible. That infallibility rubbish is what had me believing as a kid that we should always do what our parish priest and Marist Brothers principle tells us.  Only one of them ended up in prison for being trusted and is still there btw.

The pope has immunity as head of state, but since the police are not calling for, not even interviews, yet alone his head,

Nothing personal, fella, but I prefer to take the advice of Jeffery Roberson. Once again, do your research to find out why Robertson has that opinion. 

this is a massive publicity stunt, and if i was one of the abused, I would be disgraced by them making a mockary of my circumstance IMO.

You might even like the idea that anything that can be done to force a cultural change in the existing  protection of child abusers and the church reputation, should be done. But to be truthful, sir, you wouldn't have a f**king clue how you would feel unless faced with that circumstance, so remove that shiny halo and stick it up your nose with the holier than thou attitude. 

 

[serious14]

Jesus - the Pope is in fact not immune, as under United Nations law/rules, he is not classified as a head of state.

Jesus and Scottmac - neither Dawkins nor Hitchens have a new book coming out, and Dawkins most recent book was about Evolution (from a perspective which had little to do with any religious body).  Dawkins hardly needs any publicity anyway, he's sold millions of books and is very well known for his stances across many media fronts.

I gotta agree with Curious here.  Your viewpoints are confusing and slightly disturbing.

 

[scottmac]

So curious, you've managed to turn a thread about the validity of the charges proposed against the pope into a story about your own personal experience.

I too have a story like yours but it prooves f**k all.

The question was is the pope a criminal and while your story, which would have been repeated times over worldwide in many religions, is a heartbreaking one it doesn't condemn the pope.

You guys are making out as if i am trying to defend the pope and the catholic church. Just insace you missed it my view is repeated below.

.
What irks me is that Dawkins decides to bring massive public charges against the pope with no chance of success or any chance of assisting victims whatsoever. It will not cause guilty peadophiles to stand trial, or gain any compensation or apology to anyone that has suffered abuse.

I agree that members of the clergy who have committed criminal acts should be held accountable by law. Not held accountable by the self serving interests of an author who stands to gain much by this type of action.

 

[serious14]

I fail to see what Dawkins has to gain from this.... like I said before:

neither Dawkins nor Hitchens have a new book coming out, and Dawkins most recent book was about Evolution (from a perspective which had little to do with any religious body).  Dawkins hardly needs any publicity anyway, he's sold millions of books and is very well known for his stances across many media fronts.

And I do believe that Ratzinger (Dibo said it best on the last page - his grubby pawprints are all over this) is complicit in what I noted before - the obstruction of justice and interference in a police investigation.  There are very few countries where this is not a severely punishable offence.

 

[scottmac]

He refused to take action in a matter which should have been dealt with by the local bishop. It puts him in the clear. (so to speak, his concious on the other hand i am sure is tainted if he has one)
Why wouldn't Dawkins go after the bishop fior crimes against humanity. Not quite the sensationalised case that we are talking about now is it?

 

[curious]

You guys are making out as if i am trying to defend the pope and the catholic church. Just insace you missed it my view is repeated below.

What irks me is that Dawkins decides to bring massive public charges against the pope with no chance of success or any chance of assisting victims whatsoever. It will not cause guilty peadophiles to stand trial, or gain any compensation or apology to anyone that has suffered abuse.

I agree that members of the clergy who have committed criminal acts should be held accountable by law. Not held accountable by the self serving interests of an author who stands to gain much by this type of action.

And my counter argument is, I support such action regardless of whom instigates it and it's ultimate chance of success, if only it is able to bring more attention to the continued policy of the church of cover ups and help force a cultural change in a recalcitrant administration that refuses to do so.

He refused to take action in a matter which should have been dealt with by the local bishop. It puts him in the clear. (so to speak, his concious on the other hand i am sure is tainted if he has one)

The above, by it's very nature, is defending Ratzinger against accountability.
There is growing evidence, including correspondence, that Ratzinger, in his then position of authority, was not only aware of the 'handling' of the case/s, but also approved the bishops actions. Ratzinger had knowledge of the crimes, he had knowledge of the intended actions and he had the required over riding authority for approval or denial of the intended actions.

Why wouldn't Dawkins go after the bishop fior crimes against humanity. Not quite the sensationalised case that we are talking about now is it?

Surely you understand the principal of bigger fish to fry. No amount of chasing small fry will bring about the repercussions of involving the head of the church. There is no pointed political statement of accountability and no pressure for cultural change. Just a carry on as usual. I don't care of the motives of Dawkins and Hitchens. If it takes a couple of well known atheists to have the audacity to attempt to do what they aim, and if just the attempt to do so can force change for the better, then, so be it.
My fear, though, is it could bring about the opposite if the church chooses the usual practice of closing the shutters and putting their collective heads in the sand. If the Easter message from Rome of "idle gossip trying to destroy the church" is an indication of their intentions, that has already started.

Is the pope a criminal? No idea, at this stage. However, there is increasing evidence that serious questions need to be asked. And if required, in a forum where denial wont be accepted as 'gospel'.

 

[scottmac]

Is the pope a criminal? No idea, at this stage. However, there is increasing evidence that serious questions need to be asked. And if required, in a forum where denial wont be accepted as 'gospel'.

Now we are getting somewhere.


Is this the correct method to achieve serious questions being asked? Will going after someone who will never be tried or even questioned by authorities produce any good other than bad publicity for the church which it is quite good at doing on its own?

The pope is not the correct target because he will never be reached. EVER!

This is why i believe that there are alterior motives behind this very public move.
Why not sink his money into the prosecution of legitimate peadophiles within the church? Surely more recorded convictions against clergy men who have commited crimes would be more benificial than some witch hunt that will never work. It would also be a boon to the many struggling victims who do not have the resources or availability to fight against the Catholic Church for recognition of the crimes that have been commited against them.

How on earth would he suspect that by targeting the pope he will uncover a milenia of lies, secrets and hypocrisy? All it will do is cause the Vatican to once again protect by any means its most valuable public asset.

 

[curious]

As I said, the action does not need to succeed, it just needs to provide pressure for cultural change in accountability expected from within. Awareness of being watched, regardless of whom you might be. Prosecution of clergy and a treatment of the symptoms would need to continue till the cows come home if a culture of protection of the brand through whitewashing of abuse remains intact.