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.
The forthcoming campaign on the part of Messrs. Hitchens and Dawkins against the whole of the Balkans for white trafficking will be anxiously awaited. Soon to be followed, I am sure, by their assault on the fleshpots of the orient wherein the entire nation of Thailand or Taiwan can be brought to the bar of justice. Now that their sensibilities have been awakened fifty years post haste as to the affairs of the Catholic Church, perhaps they can more quickly now turn their considerable intellects to the conduct of NAMBLA and its support by the ACLU. And I anxiously await their campaign to reform the internet and the final assault they will wage on pornography. Surely their appetites for justice for all humanity cannot have been wetted by spreading innuendo and hyperbole about an old Pontiff.

But I think perhaps they should begin this long awaited crusade (the irony), with an actual charge based on something that rises to the level of a crime against humanity.
 
This should rattle the cage of all Catholics and free men everywhere.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

heraldsun.com.au/news/world/critics-call-for-arrest-of-pope/story-e6frf7lf-1225853133344

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html

From Dawkins:
Yes, of course he should. This former head of the Inquisition should be arrested the moment he dares to set foot outside his t(name removed by moderator)ot fiefdom of the Vatican, and he should be tried in an appropriate civil - not ecclesiastical - court.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the State department needs to issue a travel advisory against visitng England.

And yes, in Dawkins I see a man consumed with evil and hatred: a tool of Satan if ever there was one.
 
pnewton said:
I made my arguement, twice. I do not jump everytime some chick snaps her fingers.
Click to expand...
You made allegations but not supported ones. In your religion, this means bearing false witness if I am not mistaken.

Please come forward with credible charges, or recant.
 
pnewton said:
I made my arguement, twice. I do not jump everytime some chick snaps**** her ****fingers.
Click to expand...
Attackting the person, not the argument.

This is an argument from Ad Hominem. Attacking the person, when no other defense is ready.

You have knowledge of my sex also? How did you get this knowledge?
 
I don’t think we need to PROVE he is innocent. Others need to prove he is guilty.

As I understand it, these are things that occurred thirty odd years ago. I have worked in sexual assault with victims. No one is angrier than I am, when a bishop re-exposes victims and exposes potential victims to a pedaphile. Believe me.

But in this case, thirty years ago, we knew far less about the illness of pedaphilia, about the appropriate consequences, etc. We did not have the knowledge we do now. Decisions were made then with the information at hand THEN, with the options of that time… Not with the info we have now and the options to allot consequences we have today…

This whole discussion therefore seems to me to be an attempt of the progressive movement to hurt the Church. It’s really disgusting. If there is proof that the Pope knowingly and purposely created a situation that allowed a child to be molested to protect one of his clergy buddies, then he needs to beg forgiveness from all of us. If there is no evidence to that affect, it’s over. He may have acted today in a different way he did then, given the circumstances.

I think the Vatican is making progress (albeit embarrassingly slow!) toward realistically addressing pedaphiles in the Church, such as removing them and handing them over to secular authorities. I’m glad to see that.

As someone who was raised Protestant and has worked in sexual assault, I assure you that the Catholic Church is no worse that any other, when it comes to pedaphiles. It’s just that the hierarchy allowed a cover-up traditionally, and those who should have protected the innocent of their faithful, chose instead to protect the monsters out of misguided loyalty. That is what is the ugly part of it in Catholicism.

In the end, every priest or bishop or pope who protected these monsters, and abandonned the innocent under their protection, will have to answer to God for it. I believe that with all my heart. So I leave our pope’s fate in God’s hands. And on earth, until there is proof of malicious intent, it seems a waste of conversation in the media.
 
Biggie said:
The forthcoming campaign on the part of Messrs. Hitchens and Dawkins against the whole of the Balkans for white trafficking will be anxiously awaited. Soon to be followed, I am sure, by their assault on the fleshpots of the orient wherein the entire nation of Thailand or Taiwan can be brought to the bar of justice. Now that their sensibilities have been awakened fifty years post haste as to the affairs of the Catholic Church, perhaps they can more quickly now turn their considerable intellects to the conduct of NAMBLA and its support by the ACLU. And I anxiously await their campaign to reform the internet and the final assault they will wage on pornography. Surely their appetites for justice for all humanity cannot have been wetted by spreading innuendo and hyperbole about an old Pontiff.

But I think perhaps they should begin this long awaited crusade (the irony), with an actual charge based on something that rises to the level of a crime against humanity.
Click to expand...
You are really lured in by bias. I ask you, no- I demand you get evidence to support your allegations as I asked pnewton to do so, (none was forthcoming)

Can you provide citiations, in context that will support your position?

Please do so, or take the high road- and recant if need be.

WWJD?
 
Hereswith said:
I don’t think we need to PROVE he is innocent. Others need to prove he is guilty.

As I understand it, these are things that occurred thirty odd years ago. I have worked in sexual assault with victims. No one is angrier than I am, when a bishop re-exposes victims and exposes potential victims to a pedaphile. Believe me.

But in this case, thirty years ago, we knew far less about the illness of pedaphilia, about the appropriate consequences, etc. We did not have the knowledge we do now. Decisions were made then with the information at hand THEN, with the options of that time… Not with the info we have now and the options to allot consequences we have today…

This whole discussion therefore seems to me to be an attempt of the progressive movement to hurt the Church. It’s really disgusting. If there is proof that the Pope knowingly and purposely created a situation that allowed a child to be molested to protect one of his clergy buddies, then he needs to beg forgiveness from all of us. If there is no evidence to that affect, it’s over. He may have acted today in a different way he did then, given the circumstances.

I think the Vatican is making progress (albeit embarassingly slow!) toward realistically addressing pedaphiles in the Church, such as removing them and handing them over to secular authorities. I’m glad to see that.

As someone who was raised Protestant and has worked in Sexual Assault, I assure you that the Catholic Church is no worse that any other, when it comes to pedaphiles. It’s just that the hierarchy allowed a cover-up traditionally, and those who should have protected the innocent of their faithful, chose instead to protect the monsters out of misguided loyalty. That is what is the ugly part of it in Catholicism.
Click to expand...
The law does not care about your anecdotal experiences in life.

Let’s focus on the law. Mr. Keating knows the law.
Let him clarify it for you that are unaware of it.

Let him clarify
 
I’m reading the quote from Dawkins referencing the Inquisition. I think sometimes Protestants forget all the burning and murdering of Catholics that they themselves did too. There was plenty of burning, hanging and beheading to go around. Seems they forget that part of their history. 😦
 
Hereswith said:
I’m reading the quote from Dawkins referencing the Inquisition. I think sometimes Protestants forget all the burning and murdering of Catholics that they themselves did too. There was plenty of burning, hanging and beheading to go around. Seems they forget that part of their history. 😦
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s a great contribution to solving this ongoing problem.

Edit--------
 
StrawberryJam said:
Attackting the person, not the argument.

This is an argument from Ad Hominem. Attacking the person, when no other defense is ready.
Click to expand...
I did not attack you. I just refuse your request. You do not get to dictate or demand others to do you bidding. This is not an attack on you personally. It is a statement of fact.

You have made demands of me, of another poster. You write off someone else’s experience as irrelevant (while you give your own anecdotal evidence of Chicago justice, BTW). You can accept the way others post, or not. Likewise, we can chose to respond to your demands, or not.
 
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...
what befalls the Pope befalls many “celebrities” around the world. these celebrities are tried by public opinion and if the public says they’re guilty, regardless of what facts they hold or even a complete lack of it, then they are guilty

there are many who are just itching to pin something on the Catholic Church. they want to bring the Church down because they don’t want someone who tells people that homosexuality is a sin, not an equality issue. that abortion, contraception and divorce are sins. that we should help the poor instead of exploiting them for more profit. they don’t want to be told that even the life of someone terminally ill is valuable and they should be allowed to die, to save them from the pain, or save those who are left form the medical bills

i have had a discussion with my priest about this a few weeks ago when we filled up forms for our own police reports, which are required for all those in the Church who would work with children (background check if we have any crimes against children). he discussed how hard it is for priests to live a normal life now, how people overreact to what priests do

today people don’t want their kids alone with the priest. but how many teachers have abused children, and we still send them to school? how many sports coaches have abused members of their team? and we still send our kids into their locker rooms. there has been an overemphasis on Catholic priests, and this is because these people want to destroy the Church so no one will remind them anymore whats right and whats wrong
 
pnewton said:
I did not attack you. I just refuse your request. You do not get to dictate or demand others to do you bidding. This is not an attack on you personally. It is a statement of fact.

You have made demands of me, of another poster. You write off someone else’s experience as irrelevant (while you give your own anecdotal evidence of Chicago justice, BTW). You can accept the way others post, or not. Likewise, we can chose to respond to your demands, or not.
Click to expand...
I am going to take this to mean that you can not substantiate any of your claims that you made against Mr. Dawkins.

False witness is okay in your belief and moral code? Can’t find it in the CCC. Perhaps, you as a believer can point me to it?
 
pnewton said:
I did not attack you. I just refuse your request. You do not get to dictate or demand others to do you bidding. This is not an attack on you personally. It is a statement of fact.

You have made demands of me, of another poster. You write off someone else’s experience as irrelevant (while you give your own anecdotal evidence of Chicago justice, BTW). You can accept the way others post, or not. Likewise, we can chose to respond to your demands, or not.
Click to expand...
I do have the right to ask you how you can post what you post.
You have proven that you can not stand behind anything you post.
WWJD?
Ask if it is on topic, how politics in Chicago work. Has a lot of connection to how you reply.
Working for a machine tends to do that to people.
 
StrawberryJam said:
You have proven that you can not stand behind anything you post.
Click to expand...
Proven? Your definition of proof is, shall we say, unique. :rolleyes: Do you always strike at people who do not kowtow to your demands?

WWJD? I do not think I would agree with you on the answer to that.
 
StrawberryJam said:
You are really lured in by bias. I ask you, no- I demand you get evidence to support your allegations as I asked pnewton to do so, (none was forthcoming)

Can you provide citiations, in context that will support your position?

Please do so, or take the high road- and recant if need be.

WWJD?
Click to expand...
You demand? yeah right.
GraceAngel.
 
Grace_Angel said:
You demand? yeah right.
GraceAngel.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do demand. I have every right to per your holy book you most likey don’t read to even ask me that.

The burden of proof lies on you believers.

“Grace” “Angel”

Two things that put together, equal two things that don’t translate into anything real. But, predictably, the more the superduper natural the name tag, the less meaningful replies come from it.

Grace Angel was snotty to me, however the humble catholics that actually have more to say on deep matters, don’t use monikers like that. Wonder why?
 
StrawberryJam said:
Yes, I do demand. I have every right to per your holy book you most likey don’t read to even ask me that.

The burden of proof lies on you believers.

“Grace” “Angel”

Two things that put together, equal two things that don’t translate into anything real. But, predictably, the more the superduper natural the name tag, the less meaningful replies come from it.

Grace Angel was snotty to me, however the humble catholics that actually have more to say on deep matters, don’t use monikers like that. Wonder why?
Click to expand...
Me snotty??? Nevvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvver.
GraceAngel. (my names :love:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top