Is there any proof the Pope is innocent?

[Gift_from_God]

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.

 

[lynx]

As far as I know, the Pope might have known that a man under the churches care had committed sexual indecency. Not too damning for the Pope at the moment. I wouldn’t worry about anything Dawkins says.

 

[justlookin]

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.

He is a suspect in a crime. If he is arrested and tried in a recognised Court of Law, only then will we find out if he is guilty or not guilty

 

[Scoobyshme]

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.

The proof would have to be that he is guilty, not innocent. And that would not be possible, in my opinion.

The media, and most atheists, hate the Pope and the Church and will stop at nothing, including lying, to destroy both.

The media has been taking shots at the Pope that leave out important details. They want to blame him for abuse of children because “he delayed defrocking” certain abusive priests.

What they didn’t report, is the following:

1. Defrocking a priest (proper term is “laicizing”) removes him from his vow of celibacy. It doesn’t “undo” the Sacrament of Holy Orders. He will be a priest forever, “in the order of Mechizidek.” So, that’s really a non-issue with regard to “protecting the children.”
2. The bishop has full authority over all priests within his diocese and can, on his own authority, and at any time he deems necessary, pull a priest from active parish ministry. He doesn’t need any permission from the Vatican or anything.
3. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wasn’t put in charge of the sexual abuse stuff till 2001. I think both cases that the media is parading around were before that. The one in Wisconsin was, for sure. The only “abuse” cases that Cardinal Ratzinger heard regarding priests before that, was for abuses of the Sacrament of Confession (like relating what someone confessed to a third party).

 

[lynx]

The proof would have to be that he is guilty, not innocent. And that would not be possible, in my opinion.

The media, and most atheists, hate the Pope and the Church and will stop at nothing, including lying, to destroy both.

That sure seems like an unfounded generalization. I personally don’t care either way. I have yet to meet any atheist who actively hates against the Pope. Heck, I haven’t met a lot of atheists who even know who the Pope is! I only know because I became curious at the scandals. 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.

 

[chaunceygardner]

You can’t prove innocence, except in a specific case in which guilt or innocence could be determined. But in a general way, we can’t prove either.

If the Pope has any guilt, it is likely the same as that of the Church in general, which is the failure to come to terms with the problem quickly and to take action as needed to stop it and prevent it in the future. It is a guilt of dishonesty in not being truthful with us and the world, and the lack of courage in responding to the cries of the abused.

 

[justlookin]

The proof would have to be that he is guilty, not innocent. And that would not be possible, in my opinion.

The media, and most atheists, hate the Pope and the Church and will stop at nothing, including lying, to destroy both.

The media has been taking shots at the Pope that leave out important details. They want to blame him for abuse of children because “he delayed defrocking” certain abusive priests.

What they didn’t report, is the following:

1. Defrocking a priest (proper term is “laicizing”) removes him from his vow of celibacy. It doesn’t “undo” the Sacrament of Holy Orders. He will be a priest forever, “in the order of Mechizidek.” So, that’s really a non-issue with regard to “protecting the children.”
2. The bishop has full authority over all priests within his diocese and can, on his own authority, and at any time he deems necessary, pull a priest from active parish ministry. He doesn’t need any permission from the Vatican or anything.
3. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wasn’t put in charge of the sexual abuse stuff till 2001. I think both cases that the media is parading around were before that. The one in Wisconsin was, for sure. The only “abuse” cases that Cardinal Ratzinger heard regarding priests before that, was for abuses of the Sacrament of Confession (like relating what someone confessed to a third party).

I don’t hate him. I do not even know him. And why should I hate your church? It is of no importance to me. All I know is that your lot gather in there to chant. Doesn’t harm me so why should I hate you or your building

Frankly speaking, I do not care if your leader is guilty or innocent. Afterall, the damage has already been done to the abused children and to your establishment. But I would have thought that it was in your best interest to clear him of suspicion

 

[revert_jen]

I don’t hate him. I do not even know him. And why should I hate your church? It is of no importance to me. All I know is that your lot gather in there to chant. Doesn’t harm me so why should I hate you or your building

A couple of points spring to mind. I am happy to welcome you to this forum, but if the Catholic Church is of no importance to you, why have you joined and posted on a Catholic forum?

Also, when Catholics talk about people hating the Church, they don’t mean that people hate a building. They mean that people hate the worldwide religious body comprising some 1.2 billion members.

Frankly speaking, I do not care if your leader is guilty or innocent. Afterall, the damage has already been done to the abused children and to your establishment. But I would have thought that it was in your best interest to clear him of suspicion

One of the main reasons that our judicial system is supposed to presume innocence until and unless guilt is proven, is because it is extremely difficult to prove a negative. For example, if the Pope were guilty, it would not be impossible to find a document that proves it. If he is innocent, it pretty much would be impossible to prove that no such document ever existed. (Which is also my response to the OP, about whether there is anything to prove the Pope innocent.)

–Jen

 

[justlookin]

A couple of points spring to mind. I am happy to welcome you to this forum, but if the Catholic Church is of no importance to you, why have you joined and posted on a Catholic forum?

Also, when Catholics talk about people hating the Church, they don’t mean that people hate a building. They mean that people hate the worldwide religious body comprising some 1.2 billion members.

One of the main reasons that our judicial system is supposed to presume innocence until and unless guilt is proven, is because it is extremely difficult to prove a negative. For example, if the Pope were guilty, it would not be impossible to find a document that proves it. If he is innocent, it pretty much would be impossible to prove that no such document ever existed. (Which is also my response to the OP, about whether there is anything to prove the Pope innocent.)

–Jen

Are only Catholics allowed to join this forum? I did not know that

I don’t hate you, your building or the other 1.2 billion of you. I don’t know you, don’t enter your building and neither do I know the other 1.2 billion who believe in the things you do. I may know some of you lot but that is not because you follow a particular religion but because some of you are either my colleagues or even, friends!!!

You must be reading the Catholic newspaper. I was watching the mainstream television channels and reports on the internet where it is claimed that your leader wrote a letter asking a bishop to delay handling a case where a paedophile priest had confessed. You can argue that this letter is a fake or that it has been taken out of context or that it was the sign of the times or whatever else. The fact is that there is evidence which implicates him. Now, if he is innocent, he will clear himself in court just as any other accused does. What exactly is the difference between him and say, you. From my point of view, there is no difference. You are both just human and humans make mistakes, and they commit crimes and then they try and hide that fact

But like I said, it doesn’t now matter to me whether he is guilty or not as the damage has been done and I am not the vindictive sort looking for revenge for the sake of revenge. And revenge for whom? Although my heart goes out to all those abused children, I do not know them as such and I feel that their families and they themselves will take action if they so wish. But you claim to be Catholic. Don’t you think it is better that your leader appears in a Court of Law and clears himself rather than have this suspicion hanging over him for the rest of his life?

 

[revert_jen]

Are only Catholics allowed to join this forum? I did not know that

I made it clear that you are welcome. Asking why you would want to join a forum about an organization which is of no importance to you is not the same as saying that you are not (or should not be) allowed to join that forum.

I could join a forum about ice hockey, even though I know very little about it and care less. It would still be reasonable for those on the forum to ask me why I would want to. Also, if I joined and posted on a hockey form, people would not be unreasonable if they doubted my protestations of complete indifference.

–Jen

 

[geraldffff]

A couple of points spring to mind. I am happy to welcome you to this forum, but if the Catholic Church is of no importance to you, why have you joined and posted on a Catholic forum?

Also, when Catholics talk about people hating the Church, they don’t mean that people hate a building. They mean that people hate the worldwide religious body comprising some 1.2 billion members.

One of the main reasons that our judicial system is supposed to presume innocence until and unless guilt is proven, is because it is extremely difficult to prove a negative. For example, if the Pope were guilty, it would not be impossible to find a document that proves it. If he is innocent, it pretty much would be impossible to prove that no such document ever existed. (Which is also my response to the OP, about whether there is anything to prove the Pope innocent.)

–Jen

Thank you Jen, I could not have said it better.

 

[justlookin]

I made it clear that you are welcome. Asking why you would want to join a forum about an organization which is of no importance to you is not the same as saying that you are not (or should not be) allowed to join that forum.

I could join a forum about ice hockey, even though I know very little about it and care less. It would still be reasonable for those on the forum to ask me why I would want to. Also, if I joined and posted on a hockey form, people would not be unreasonable if they doubted my protestations of complete indifference.

–Jen

Thank you for the welcome but I am still confused. Are you kind of hinting that since I do not subscribe to your belief system, I must therefore be ‘against’ you. I do not subscribe to loads and loads of things people believe in: Mohammad, Moses, Hindu gods, other types of gods, flying saucers, the Loch Ness monster (although, I did see that once but that was after 3 shots of Drambuie) but I have nothing ‘against’ those people either

Nevertheless, I only know about what they believe in because they express their beliefs to me and to others. How else would we otherwise know the kind of things they believe in

One day, someone might give me some evidence of the existence of flying saucers. If that happens, I will accept that flying saucers exist. But I will have to be listening to that person. Same goes for this forum. I am reading comments from Catholics on this forum. That gives me an insight into your mindset. Doesn’t mean that I am going to accept any of the things you believe without any concrete evidence

 

[geraldffff]

Are only Catholics allowed to join this forum? I did not know that

I don’t hate you, your building or the other 1.2 billion of you. I don’t know you, don’t enter your building and neither do I know the other 1.2 billion who believe in the things you do. I may know some of you lot but that is not because you follow a particular religion but because some of you are either my colleagues or even, friends!!!

You must be reading the Catholic newspaper. I was watching the mainstream television channels and reports on the internet where it is claimed that your leader wrote a letter asking a bishop to delay handling a case where a paedophile priest had confessed. You can argue that this letter is a fake or that it has been taken out of context or that it was the sign of the times or whatever else. The fact is that there is evidence which implicates him. Now, if he is innocent, he will clear himself in court just as any other accused does. What exactly is the difference between him and say, you. From my point of view, there is no difference. You are both just human and humans make mistakes, and they commit crimes and then they try and hide that fact

But like I said, it doesn’t now matter to me whether he is guilty or not as the damage has been done and I am not the vindictive sort looking for revenge for the sake of revenge. And revenge for whom? Although my heart goes out to all those abused children, I do not know them as such and I feel that their families and they themselves will take action if they so wish. But you claim to be Catholic. Don’t you think it is better that your leader appears in a Court of Law and clears himself rather than have this suspicion hanging over him for the rest of his life?

"
““I don’t hate you, your building or the other 1.2 billion of you.”” Are you suggesting the “Catholic Church” is a building? Anybody is welcome on this site, I am sure you read the rules before you posted.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Remain on topic please

 

[StrawberryJam]

Proof of innocence is not what is in question by any court of law. Any commentary beyond that, would be straying off topic.

 

[edwest2]

What crime has he been charged with? Crimes against humanity is too vague and general to apply here.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[StrawberryJam]

What crime has he been charged with? Crimes against humanity is too vague and general to apply here.

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

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.

 

[pnewton]

Can anyone here prove that they have not committed a crime against humanity?

Dawkins is smart enough to realize that he is acting stupid. One can not prove a gerneral negative. That is why the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. In this case, however, there has not even been an allegation of a crime against humanity. What has been alleged (by very biased people) is* knowledge* of a crime against individuals.

This whole witch hunt is a ridiculous.

 

[srlucado]

Take a moment and read this:

insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/04/lets-get-the-story-straight-defrocking-and-divorce-fr-joseph-fessio-sj.html

This is the decisive context of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to Bishop Cummins. It is not a smoking gun. It did not mean that Ratzinger was not taking the priest’s sins seriously. (He called the accusations “very serious” [gravis momenti].) It meant that he, following the policy of John Paul II, was taking the priesthood and its commitments very seriously.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Can anyone here prove that they have not committed a crime against humanity?

Dawkins is smart enough to realize that he is acting stupid. One can not prove a gerneral negative. That is why the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. In this case, however, there has not even been an allegation of a crime against humanity. What has been alleged (by very biased people) is* knowledge* of a crime against individuals.

This whole witch hunt is a ridiculous.

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?