Is there any proof the Pope is innocent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StrawberryJam said:
Berry best to you Ed!

Let’s not jump to conclusions. Let the chips fall where they may. Neither you or I can state that there is no case to be made, or brought to a court. Time will tell Ed.
I’m sure we will have more to comment on in due time. Crimes against humanity have been brought to court Ed. Let’s wait and see how this plays out before we decide for the court what is or is not a matter that should be heard. Some things taken for granted can be challenged. And, they will be in this case.
For the record, I am a wait and see type. Let’s not panic too soon. Let’s look at the paper first, then go from there.
Click to expand...
Chips will not be falling anywhere. It will not be possible to arrest the Pope. The Vatican knows this.

God bless,
Ed
Choose Jesus.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I think you may be on a witch hunt against Dawkins. Can you please demonstrate or retract your claim that Mr. Dawkins is attempting to prove a negative?
Click to expand...
No. As I am not the one who brought Dawkins into the discussion, but rather he himself interjected his 2 cents, I am obviously not on a witch hunt against him.

I gave my demonstation Can you prove that you have never committed any crime against humanity? Could you prove that you never supported child abuse? The accusation is ridiculous. If you can not see this fallacy, then I can give you no better demonstration. I see no need for a retraction.
 
Is there any proof the Pope is innocent?

i thought we are all innocent until proven guilty? proof should be to prove guilt, not innocence
 
lynx said:
. Maybe you should focus on the true enemy which are the individuals inside the church that allowed the actions to happen, and not on the atheists and reporters who didn’t molest those 200 deaf boys.
Click to expand...
You make a very good point.

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve read posts that spoke poorly of the atheists and the secular media that have been accused of trying to destroy the Church.

What about the Priest that molested those 200 deaf children? I’d say that that Catholic Priests behavior is much more likely to destroy the Church than the media reporting the Priests actions or the fact that he didn’t lose his job, let alone an Atheist demanding accountability for such heinous crimes.

The Pope, like all people, if charged with a crime, is innocent until proven guilty.
 
pnewton said:
No. As I am not the one who brought Dawkins into the discussion, but rather he himself interjected his 2 cents, I am obviously not on a witch hunt against him.

I gave my demonstation Can you prove that you have never committed any crime against humanity? Could you prove that you never supported child abuse? The accusation is ridiculous. If you can not see this fallacy, then I can give you no better demonstration. I see no need for a retraction.
Click to expand...
Cite what he actually interjected, and not what you claimed he did. Then, you must either retract what your allegations were against him, or you must support them. You have done nothing but level allegations without support of them. Support them, or admit you made a false allegation. It really is that simple.
 
choy said:
Is there any proof the Pope is innocent?

i thought we are all innocent until proven guilty? proof should be to prove guilt, not innocence
Click to expand...
You are taking this thread far too seriously. No one can legally ask anyone to prove their innocence in a court of law. That is why the OP is worded the way it is. Not many people here know the law.
 
choy said:
Is there any proof the Pope is innocent?

i thought we are all innocent until proven guilty? proof should be to prove guilt, not innocence
Click to expand...
Yeah, I probably should have worded the question in a different way. What I meant is is there a way to know whether or not he knew about these cases?

P.S. I’ve noticed that today we need to prove innocence. I don’t like it, but everyone presumes someone guilty, especially RCC members and the hierarchy
 
Gift_from_God said:
Yeah, I probably should have worded the question in a different way. What I meant is is there a way to know whether or not he knew about these cases?

P.S. I’ve noticed that today we need to prove innocence. I don’t like it, but everyone presumes someone guilty, especially RCC members and the hierarchy
Click to expand...
No one needs to prove innocennce Gift from God.

You don’t understand the legal system. I am sorry for that, but glad that you asked about it.
We are seeing some very interesting views from theists here.
 
pnewton said:
No one, even the Holy Father, which is exactly why he has no obligation to respond to all this gossip and speculation.
Click to expand...
You made gossip and speculation against Mr. Dawkins. You have yet to defend your gossip and speculations.
 
What alleged behavior of the Pope rises to the level of “crimes against humanity”? I am anxious to hear a specific case to that effect.
 
StrawberryJam said:
Specific case?
Click to expand...
You know, what’s the specific case? As in, to be guilty or innocent of crimes against humanity, there must be a brief alleging crimes against humanity. Or has that been foregone in this instance because it’s the Pope and he should be made to plead to unspecified crimes against humanity because he is Catholic? So what crimes rising to the level of crimes against humanity are alleged?
 
Biggie said:
You know, what’s the specific case? As in, to be guilty or innocent of crimes against humanity, there must be a brief alleging crimes against humanity. Or has that been foregone in this instance because it’s the Pope and he should be made to plead to unspecified crimes against humanity because he is Catholic? So what crimes rising to the level of crimes against humanity are alleged?
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, we must wait and see what is on paper before reacting.
Let’s see how good the paper is first, before deciding for the court what is and what is not worthy to bring before her. Ultimately, our opinions will mean nothing.

Law will decide.
 
StrawberryJam said:
As I said earlier, we must wait and see what is on paper before reacting.
Let’s see how good the paper is first, before deciding for the court what is and what is not worthy to bring before her. Ultimately, our opinions will mean nothing.

Law will decide.
Click to expand...
Well there’s the small matter of an indictment of some sort based on that testy little probable cause thing. So getting to the question of the Pope’s innocence skips a few of those steps. But I would venture to say if probable case were attempted to be brought, the indictment would be against the entire Catholic Church, since the only conceivable basis for such a charge is that the Catholic Church itself is a criminal enterprise with the Pope at its head. And if the entire Catholic Church were a criminal enterprise, where is the crime against humanity?
 
Biggie said:
Well there’s the small matter of an indictment of some sort based on that testy little probable cause thing. So getting to the question of the Pope’s innocence skips a few of those steps. But I would venture to say if probable case were attempted to be brought, the indictment would be against the entire Catholic Church, since the only conceivable basis for such a charge is that the Catholic Church itself is a criminal enterprise with the Pope at its head. And if the entire Catholic Church were a criminal enterprise, where is the crime against humanity?
Click to expand...
I live in Chicago. You can indict a hamburgur here. Try again.

The charges will not be what you expect. I think what will come first is a challenge to dipolmatic status, and legal basis for such status., IMHO as an average joe observer mind you.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I live in Chicago. You can indict a hamburgur here. Try again.

The charges will not be what you expect. I think what will come first is a challenge to dipolmatic status, and legal basis for such status., IMHO as an average joe observer mind you.
Click to expand...
A challenge to diplomatic status and legal basis for such status to what end? Yes, that’s the sticky part. There has to be something more than a simple allegation. Even in Chicago, anti-Catholic bigotry has to don the white mantle of propriety.
 
Gift_from_God said:
Dawkins and Hitchens want the pope arrested for crimes against humanity. I’ve often said that if he is genuinely guilty, he should be held accountable. So far, I’ve only heard “he’s guilty because I say so” it’'s a very weak form of reasoning, but it does not prove he’s guilty. I really admire Benedict XVI and I’m wondering if there is any proof that these cases did not reach him with the exception of priests that died during their investigation.

Remember, Jesus warned us that if they persecute him, they will persecute us.
Click to expand...
I go by the principle “Innocent until proven guilty.” The burden of evidence should be on the prosecution, not the defendant.

Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, Pope Benedict XVI is innocent of all charges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top