Is the Pope still a decent fellow?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gift_from_God

Guest
The mainstream media seems to be extremely anti-Catholic. It’s here to spread the truth, but it never gives other scandals like the Rabbi scandal a lot of coverage.

My question is; is there reason to be genuinely angry at the Pope? Or is there something the media isn’t telling us?

please tell me!

Jesus wasn’t kidding when he said “If they persecuted me, they will persecute you”.
 
No Jesus wasn’t. It still brings me sadness though to see how the Church is being persecuted. But if you want my opinion, yes I still believe 1000000000% that Pope Benedict is a good man; an excellent man. I do not claim to be an expert in these scandals or know a lot about what happened, but I do know that the way they are portraying our Holy Father is completely ridiculous.

The media isn’t telling you that in the Wisconsin case, the Holy See wasn’t notified until many years later; only several months before the priest in question died.

They are trying to blame this all on the Pope when it is not his fault. Pray for the victims, the Church, our Holy Father and also that this will never happen again.

Jacob
 
The mainstream media seems to be extremely anti-Catholic. It’s here to spread the truth, but it never gives other scandals like the Rabbi scandal a lot of coverage.

My question is; is there reason to be genuinely angry at the Pope? Or is there something the media isn’t telling us?

please tell me!

Jesus wasn’t kidding when he said “If they persecuted me, they will persecute you”.
Your comment about the mainstream media spreading the truth is your opinion and I value your opinion, but I don’t agree with it. I have believed for many years the mainstream media says what it wants, when it wants. I also believe the mainstream media tells people what they want people to hear.

To answer your questions - I believe Pope Benedict XVI is a decent person and I have no reason to be angry with him.

:harp:
 
Only the Lord knows what is hidden in his heart…What was done in secret will be shouted from the rooftops…If all that’s goin on is true more will surface and be exposed if not it will fade away as the truth replaces it…

What hurt was things getting covered and transfers taking place…That’s what keeps the spotlight on your church and it leaders.
 
If we had one media source that was true, that was honest, that was fair, they would be blowing away the non stop, unlimited scandals CNN and the rest of the lot have going on from day way, making what any other party does, pale in comparison. The problem is, nobody is stepping up to the plate to do it. I am very careful where I get my news from, I then have to still filter through the tripe to get at the truth regardless.

Lets take the present situation into context with the Pope, and tell me what any of you would have done differently, honestly, he really did do the right thing.

We have some bad priests being exposed for what they are, sick, warped creatures absolutely not worthy of wearing their garb, or holding their title, sent from the devil himself. These in turn get exposed and this is a good thing right? No, it’s not, it means that opportunists are going to also accuse innocent ones as well, partially for personal fiscal gain, partially because the individuals hate the church. The guilty and the innocent are immediately suspended, the ones that are not guilty are ruined just as much as the ones that are. This is why you don’t want to let this stuff reach public scrutiny. Now, adding onto this one, case in point with Michael Jackson, where he was guilty, but there were people that came out of the wood work, just to get their cut of the pie, taking him into court for false accusations from others, that he was proven not guilty, the same thing goes on with the guilty priests as well.

You’ll notice none of them cover the abuses in comparison with secular society, I know for a fact, the majority, “I mean majority”, of all sexual abuse cases are perpetrated by family members, not outside parties, their own family, and this is a much larger problem, yet it’s not being covered. Why is that, it’s because these same family members are patronizing the news sources, giving them money and attention, the sources dare not rock that boat and do the right thing upon reporting accurate, very much necessary information, that would result in a loss of revenue.

I suspect, eventually, the church will set up a sting operation just to prove how unreliable the news sources are, and after exposing them for what they are, we as a population will open our eyes to the truth. There are so many things that go on, none of us are privy to, it’s impossible to report the truth publicly since they don’t have the full truth.

The Pope made his decisions to protect good priests, bottom line, and any one of us in his same position would make the same decision. So, yeah, he’s a decent fellow, he’s doing a job none of us want to do, and he’s doing it the best way he can. We are required to support him at all times, anything short of this, we should take a hard look at ourselves and outside of throwing stones, when we ourselves have fallen short, see where our loyalties lie, with the church or with the media…
 
Maybe I am just impossibly stupid, but I still have not figured out what it was that he did wrong.
 
What hurt was things getting covered and transfers taking place…That’s what keeps the spotlight on your church and it leaders.
I agree with you on this. The major victims here are those who were abused by priests, and the major culprits were the abusive priests and the cowardly or callous bishops who moved them around. That said, there are other, minor victims: those who’ve seen their good names ruined and their life’s work brought to shame through no fault of their own. These include innocent priests everywhere, who are now looked at askew. But in a particular way, this includes our pope, who’s been one of the best crusaders against clerical sex abuse that exists on Earth today - no exaggeration. He’s put into place tough policies to address abuse, he’s met with victims, he’s called out (repeatedly) the “filth” that is sex abuse, and so forth. I would be hard-pressed to find a more positive and constructive response to this crisis than Benedict’s, particularly from about 2001 forwards, after he got a real grip on the scope of the problem.

Just as there are other victimes, there are also other culprits: those who are using this tragedy as a cheap attempt to score points for their agenda - fighting orthodoxy in the Catholic Church, punishing the Church for Her stance against same-sex marriage and abortion, or just selling more newspapers. They’re capitalizing on a human tragedy for selfish reasons, and turning victims into objects. I don’t see a whole lot of difference between a corrupt bishop not addressing a predator priest because he’s afraid it’ll make the Church look bad, and a disaffected, former Catholic journalist who tells the whole world about how someone got molested *in order *to make the Church look bad. Both are more concerned with the Church’s appearance than the well-being of the victim. Not all the journalists covering this fit that category, of course, but the ones who, instead of focusing on the actual culprits, skew facts to try and link the pope (via 6-degrees of separation and half-truths) to the abuse scandal, certainly seem to.
 
I certainly don’t recall any statements where a Cardinal or even the Pope is supposed to be omniscient regarding the actions of people, including priests, who fall into sin.😉

He relied on a staff and if they did not pass “bad news” up to him, that is no different from many private corporations.

The burden of proof remains with the accusers.
 
Maybe I am just impossibly stupid, but I still have not figured out what it was that he did wrong.
I did not write this piece; I only offer it as an alternate viewpoint because the issue was brought up. I trust the moderators will not ban me for bringing to light the other side of the equation. That would be tantamount to further obfuscation.

These are crimes, folks. This is not something to be washed away by a secret agreement, an “inside job”, a hush-hush deal. People’s lives have been shattered in the name of presenting an untarnished priesthood. Call it justice, closure, whatever you like; these victims need to see somebody being held thoroughly accountable for the horrors of sexual exploitation within the clergy.

slate.com/id/2247861/

Limerick
 
Your comment about the mainstream media spreading the truth is your opinion and I value your opinion, but I don’t agree with it. I have believed for many years the mainstream media says what it wants, when it wants. I also believe the mainstream media tells people what they want people to hear.

To answer your questions - I believe Pope Benedict XVI is a decent person and I have no reason to be angry with him.

:harp:

You obviously don’t have a child who was sodomized or otherwise sexually exploited by your parish priest, who then enjoyed legal, moral and financial protection from his superiors.

But you still have a reason to be angry with your pope.

Limerick***
 
I think the Pope tries his best to be a decent man.

But the reason the Rabbi case hasn’t got so much attention is because it’s really not a scandal in the same essence of the one in the Catholic Church.

There are countless sex-abuse “scandals” among Priest…Not so much with Rabbis.

The public sees multiple Priest and multiple victims over decades being moved from parish to parish to avoid static to be a way bigger problem than 1 Rabbi in 1 Synagogue with 1 victim.

I’d have to agree with that^^^^
 
I agree with you on this. The major victims here are those who were abused by priests, and the major culprits were the abusive priests and the cowardly or callous bishops who moved them around. That said, there are other, minor victims: those who’ve seen their good names ruined and their life’s work brought to shame through no fault of their own. These include innocent priests everywhere, who are now looked at askew. But in a particular way, this includes our pope, who’s been one of the best crusaders against clerical sex abuse that exists on Earth today - no exaggeration. He’s put into place tough policies to address abuse, he’s met with victims, he’s called out (repeatedly) the “filth” that is sex abuse, and so forth. I would be hard-pressed to find a more positive and constructive response to this crisis than Benedict’s, particularly from about 2001 forwards, after he got a real grip on the scope of the problem.

Just as there are other victimes, there are also other culprits: those who are using this tragedy as a cheap attempt to score points for their agenda - fighting orthodoxy in the Catholic Church, punishing the Church for Her stance against same-sex marriage and abortion, or just selling more newspapers. They’re capitalizing on a human tragedy for selfish reasons, and turning victims into objects. I don’t see a whole lot of difference between a corrupt bishop not addressing a predator priest because he’s afraid it’ll make the Church look bad, and a disaffected, former Catholic journalist who tells the whole world about how someone got molested *in order *to make the Church look bad. Both are more concerned with the Church’s appearance than the well-being of the victim. Not all the journalists covering this fit that category, of course, but the ones who, instead of focusing on the actual culprits, skew facts to try and link the pope (via 6-degrees of separation and half-truths) to the abuse scandal, certainly seem to.
***Putting in place “tough policies”, visiting with victims, calling sexual exploitation “filth” are not solutions to this pervasive, disgusting problem. Policies must be enacted, priests must go to trial. A visit with the pope is not going to erase the destruction wantonly thrust upon these victims. Their lives will never be the same. Calling these behaviors “filth” doesn’t require courage or even empathy. These are showcase gestures to attempt to quiet the fury that is rising. This business about turning victims into objects is not the handiwork of the media. This lies squarely in the laps of every priest - or any other clergy member - who has ever engaged in pedophilia.

Why defend the perpetrators? They have broken the law. They must be held accountable, not just sent off for a sojourn in the mountains to return refreshed and ready to abuse the next kid.

Limerick***
 
I don’t know.

The actions he takes, or fails to take, against clerics and religous who abused and bishops and cardinals who obstructed justice and covered up scandal in the comming months and years may answer that question more fully.
 
He relied on a staff and if they did not pass “bad news” up to him, that is no different from many private corporations…
According to this newspaper article, he, as Cardinal, ordered the silencing of bishops and decreed total secrecy in dealing with allegations of abuse.
The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.
guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection
 

You obviously don’t have a child who was sodomized or otherwise sexually exploited by your parish priest, who then enjoyed legal, moral and financial protection from his superiors.

But you still have a reason to be angry with your pope.

Limerick***
You chose to quote me and then you said the above.

You don’t know what I have or don’t have. And don’t tell me if I have a reason or not to be angry with the Pope. You do not think for me and you do not know me. I answered the OP’s question. Don’t presume to know who I am, what I have been through or what I think.
 
You chose to quote me and then you said the above.

You don’t know what I have or don’t have. And don’t tell me if I have a reason or not to be angry with the Pope. You do not think for me and you do not know me. I answered the OP’s question. Don’t presume to know who I am, what I have been through or what I think.
***Mea culpa, then. Let me ask you this:

Do*** you have a child who has been molested, exploited, raped by a priest or any other clergy member? Would you be willing to honestly answer that question? This is an anonymous site; no one would be able to identify your son or daughter, or you for that matter.

Or how about this one: do you believe the Pope is without any shred of accountability in the cover-up and dumbing-down of the pedophile issue? Does not the buck stop with him? Do you honestly believe the Pope had no knowledge of these incidents? If that is the case, I humbly recommend that you investigate the facts. If you can still defend his actions, then I am grateful to have disenfranchised myself from Catholicism. I choose to view all sides, not just the Vatican-endorsed side.

Limerick
 
***Mea culpa, then. Let me ask you this:

Do*** you have a child who has been molested, exploited, raped by a priest or any other clergy member? Would you be willing to honestly answer that question? This is an anonymous site; no one would be able to identify your son or daughter, or you for that matter.
Limerick, do you have a child who has been molested, exploited, raped by a priest or any other clergy member? I would honestly like to know the answer.
 
I think the Pope tries his best to be a decent man.

But the reason the Rabbi case hasn’t got so much attention is because it’s really not a scandal in the same essence of the one in the Catholic Church.
There are countless sex-abuse “scandals” among Priest …Not so much with Rabbis.

The public sees multiple Priest and multiple victims over decades being moved from parish to parish to avoid static to be a way bigger problem than 1 Rabbi in 1 Synagogue with 1 victim.

I’d have to agree with that^^^^
Hogwash! Countless? That’s a complete exaggeration of the facts which actually show that the problem is far far worse in the education systems and far more covered up, with no one really daring to out it because the school systems belong to government entities and that would cause a loss of vital tax revenues. So much for how important children really are.

Further the facts are that there is an equally, if not greater, problem of this in non-Catholic religions as evidenced by the following links. Note that these other groups re part of a current and ongoing problem and the problems for the Church are mostly decades old and we have current programs and protocols in place to help prevent it, whereas most of these others actually are still involved in cover ups and the problem continues.

Compared to most of these current problems, the Catholic Church is way ahead of the problem at this point.

So when you want to talk about something, be sure you’re facts are straight.
FOXNews.com - Sexual Abuse of Minors in Protestant Churches - FOX Fan

StopBaptistPredators.org

Child Sexual Molestation by Various Protestant Clergy

What’s behind today’s epidemic of teacher-student sex?
 
According to this newspaper article, he, as Cardinal, ordered the silencing of bishops and decreed total secrecy in dealing with allegations of abuse.

guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection
Code:
That's old news and if you actually read the letter, which "The Guardian" hasn't got the integrity to publish, you'd very quickly see that they completely misrepresent (read that as: lie about) what the document actually says. I've read the text and it's a real shame that a British news organ would print this specious anti-Catholic propaganda like that.
It’s also a shame that people believe it at face value as you have. Find that document and get the real facts.
 
I have read the New York Times articles and the documents in the Milwaukee case carefully, and don’t feel that the Archbishop or Cardinal Ratzinger conspired, but I do feel that he dropped the ball. He was derelict of duty in pastoral matters. He should have responded to Archbishop Weakland’s personal appeal to him and/or had close, personal supervision of that case. In the Munich case, it was easier for him to overlook the priest from Essen coming to his archdiocese for room and board for treatment of a psychiatric illness, but a shame that his subordinates failed to follow the priest and to prevent him from parish work during his treatment. It is a pity that the Archbishop didn’t focus on the nature of the priest’s illness at the time, but understandable that he let it slip. According to the New York Times article on him, he was not interested in the day-to-day running of his large archdiocese, but on doctrinal conformity.

He’s a decent fellow, I am sure, but it requires a lot more than ‘being a decent fellow’ to be an effective Archbishop and Cardinal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top