News Story Today about the Pope

[Dokimas]

Your comments are showing your inability or unwillingness to understand the infallability issue for each of the succession of 266 Popes that have led the one true Church of Jesus Christ since the beginning of Christianity. Leading the Church in dogmatic and doctrinal issues in the only area of infallibility that is protected by the Holy Spirit’s guidance as Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

Of course, we are ALL sinners. However, your idea that YOU personally would be a much better leader is based on…WHAT?? Jesus came to teach us how to live in God’s grace and built a CHURCH, he did not come to write a book. In fact the Bible is a compilation of individual works, as guided by the Holy Spirit and that compilation was drawn together by the Catholic Church and our Bishops under the guidance of the Pope. I doubt that you or any other individual could have ever accomplished this great work or assembled our beautiful Bible. To the contrary, some individuals thinking that they themselves are much more competent in these matters have actually stripped out 7 of the great books of the Bible claiming to know better. Please, take some time to study history, pray and commit to working on understanding what Jesus accomplished by becoming like us in all things but sin. If all we need is a book, most of it was already written before Jesus showed up!

I’m trying to find where I said I’d be a better leader. Could you requote me and highlight where I said it. Thank you.​

Maybe I don’t understand and mybe you don’t. Any time any group says look to us, we’re the only correct group with the only correct understanding I get lost in all the We, we, we, us, us, us, I, I, I, me, me, me, look at us, look at us, look at us stuff. Anything more than look to Jesus is confusing to me.

 

[twopekinguys]

Look at the story. I agree that you do not fire someone based upon an accusation. I understand due process.

They sent this man to therapy…or were going to. Do you send someone to therapy for an accusation alone? I doubt it. That is what my statement is based on. On the other hand, IF they sent a person or were going to send a person to therapy for an accusation alone, that is also awful management as well.
I am basing my statement of numerous links to the story which I have read including this
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100313/ts_nm/us_germany_abuse_pope_13

We have to look at something here. Even IF the priest did this, then councilling is appropriate. You just don’t automatically throw someone away because they have a problem. Not matter what that problem is.

Something to keep in mind, is that when many of these abuses (proven) were taking place (30+ years ago), the psychiatric community still thought that these people could be “cured”, and that councilling would fix everything… So the Church would send these people to councilling.

Obviously, the psychiatric community has since changed their school of thought on this issue, and realize that it is an ongoing, possibly incurable thing, and the Church is seeing that also.

It is a matter of gaining a better understanding of the disease. (yes, it is a disease)
Including this fact as well

Like I said, I don’t care about the theology argument. I am looking at the administrative side of it…

As far as the priest that was housed, etc. Again, what was the Pope supposed to do based on an “accusation”, that wasn’t proven until 6 year later. He isn’t clarevoyant.

 

[BrianH]

We have to look at something here. Even IF the priest did this, then councilling is appropriate. You just don’t automatically throw someone away because they have a problem. Not matter what that problem is.

Something to keep in mind, is that when many of these abuses (proven) were taking place (30+ years ago), the psychiatric community still thought that these people could be “cured”, and that councilling would fix everything… So the Church would send these people to councilling.

Obviously, the psychiatric community has since changed their school of thought on this issue, and realize that it is an ongoing, possibly incurable thing, and the Church is seeing that also.

It is a matter of gaining a better understanding of the disease. (yes, it is a disease)
Including this fact as well

As far as the priest that was housed, etc. Again, what was the Pope supposed to do based on an “accusation”, that wasn’t proven until 6 year later. He isn’t clarevoyant.

Yes you do throw them out. Any adult, in a capacity that works with children, gets fired and no we do not hire them back. In fact, we put them on the sexual predator list that forbids them to even come into the school in any capacity. I would not treat the church any different.
What sector do you work in? I am just curious because I would be shocked if it was with kids. But I could be wrong.

 

[Dokimas]

It “proves” nothing of the sort.

The one thing has nothing to do with the other. Sin and infallibility are not mutually exclusive. Let me understand what you’re saying by giving an example: It’s possible to be infallible while sinning?

You acknowledge the letters of St. Peter and St. Paul as Scripture and they had AUTHORITY and wrote INFALLABLY. Paul murdered Christians and Peter denied Christ. So, they both committed sins and yet had great authority. The Holy Spirit is the One that is infallible, not those doing the writing.

This conculsion does not follow at all. Please study some logic before trying to present such an argument. It wouldn’t hurt to study the doctrine of infallibility either. Knowledge of a subject does give one more credibility in a discussion. All of Christianity accept the 27 books of the NT as being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Then I’ll accept them but the ones that you say your church says they chose and are inspired because they say so I’ll let you learn from them and I’ll learn from the 27. That’s the grounds for my logic.

I don’t accept your logic for embracing the sacred traditions and the magisterium. I’ll stick to the Bible.

 

[twopekinguys]

Yes you do throw them out. Any adult, in a capacity that works with children, gets fired and no we do not hire them back. In fact, we put them on the sexual predator list that forbids them to even come into the school in any capacity. I would not treat the church any different.
What sector do you work in? I am just curious because I would be shocked if it was with kids. But I could be wrong.

I work in Law enforcement, and I frequently work with children.

Your comment abot being “shocked if it was with kids”, is extremely rude, and uncalled for.

Considering the line of work that I am in, I would say I have probably seen a little more of this first hand than most of the posters on here.

I see teachers who have failed to report, I have seen parents fail to report, and I have seen medical professionals fail to report, all of which are mandated to report suspected abuse.so I suggest you get off your high horse

 

[BrianH]

I work in Law enforcement, and I frequently work with children.

Your comment abot being “shocked if it was with kids”, is extremely rude, and uncalled for.

Considering the line of work that I am in, I would say I have probably seen a little more of this first hand than most of the posters on here.

I see teachers who have failed to report, I have seen parents fail to report, and I have seen medical professionals fail to report, all of which are mandated to report suspected abuse.so I suggest you get off your high horse

If any of those people did not report, they should be fired.
Bottom line. Failure to report should equal termination.
Abuse proven should equal termination.
This is a poorly ran organization in the past. If they would fire people who abused, proven of course, the Catholic Church would have a lot less bad publicity. Is it better? I would imagine so. I certainly hope so.
I do not think your horse is high enough in this case. I found your attitude lax. And I still do. So no apology from me.

 

[Roblox84]

Roblox, I know you read the story and are familiar with it, but many of us aren’t. Its often a good idea, when posting about a current news report, to include a link to it.

This seems to be the AP story you are referring to:

**Pope under fire for transfer, letter on sex abuse **

The entire article can be read here:

wcfcourier.com/news/world/europe/article_4e16c177-6a3c-5a23-8abc-8e7b54e896c3.html

Sorry, there were just a lot of versions of it. I didn’t know from which source people would most likely want to read.

 

[twopekinguys]

If any of those people did not report, they should be fired.
Bottom line. Failure to report should equal termination.
Abuse proven should equal termination.
This is a poorly ran organization in the past. If they would fire people who abused, proven of course, the Catholic Church would have a lot less bad publicity. Is it better? I would imagine so. I certainly hope so.
I do not think your horse is high enough in this case. I found your attitude lax. And I still do. So no apology from me.

Opinions are just that, and yours in no more valid than anyone elses.

Ok, lets look at what you just said. Failure to report should equal termination. Does that mean that every teacher, secretary,custodian, lunch room worker, crossing guard and principal employed by that school that encounted that child and didn’t report should be fired? Since all of these people come in contact with a child at one time or another, then according to you they should be fired.

Just because someone is accused, it doesn’t mean the allegations are true.

At the time that priest was under the jurisdiction of the pope, he was “accused”. It wasn’t proven until 6 years later. According to your thinking, you think he should have been fired then. There is no way to predict what a person will do. Look at the number of people that were never accused of doing something wrong, and ended up doing so.

You may find my attitude lax, but it is based on real life experiences, and watching people have their lives destroyed by false accusations as well as those that have been found valid.

I just find it amazing that you are so quick to judge how other people see things.

 

[BrianH]

Opinions are just that, and yours in no more valid than anyone elses.

Ok, lets look at what you just said. Failure to report should equal termination. Does that mean that every teacher, secretary,custodian, lunch room worker, crossing guard and principal employed by that school that encounted that child and didn’t report should be fired? Since all of these people come in contact with a child at one time or another, then according to you they should be fired.

Just because someone is accused, it doesn’t mean the allegations are true.

At the time that priest was under the jurisdiction of the pope, he was “accused”. It wasn’t proven until 6 years later. According to your thinking, you think he should have been fired then. There is no way to predict what a person will do. Look at the number of people that were never accused of doing something wrong, and ended up doing so.

You may find my attitude lax, but it is based on real life experiences, and watching people have their lives destroyed by false accusations as well as those that have been found valid.

I just find it amazing that you are so quick to judge how other people see things.

Let me get this straight…you work in law enforcement and do not seem to understand the criteria for reporting sexual abuse? You seem to equate coming in contact with a child that later it has been proven to have been sexually abused as failure to report? Now lets give you the benefit of the doubt on this…although it is possibly the worst representation I have ever read of what constitutes suspicion and our duties to report.
You do not wait for absolute proof to report. But if you are in law enforcement…you already know that.
You do have to report when there is reasonable cause. But since you are in law enforcement…you already know that too.
Reasonable cause is defined as what a person acting in a rationale manner would do when faced with behaviors that are typical of sexual abuse victims (ie masterbating in public, attempting to emulate adult sexual activity with peers), physical signs (excessive rubbing), or statements made.
But…you already know that because you are in law enforcement and I would of course not explain that to someone who already knows that…unless they DON’T know that…

 

[aquabatix]

Why would you say that? Did you look it up aquabatix? Before you stated something that is untrue…did you look it up? You should have. Shame on you.

nacba.net/Article/UMSPEAK.htm
anglicanprovince.org/APA%20Law/Sexual%20Conduct%20Policy/POLICY.pdf
lds.about.com/od/basicsgospelprinciples/p/abuse.htm
sbc.net/PDF/2008ReportSBC.pdf

Get your facts straight…

Shame on me? How very Christian of you to pass judgement. Well if you read your posted links (I read the first and third (because I’m on my phone and that’s all it will do) but searched about the other two traditions), you would see that the links you posted were refering to that faith traditions stance or opinion about sexual abuse or abuse in general. No cases and what they actually did, no examples, just “we think abuse is bad…”. Those links in no way backed up your point and only proved mine, thank you for posting them for everyone to read. You shouldn’t point fingers about research, as you showed us all, when you point your finger at someone else, you have three more of your own pointing right back.

 

[nsper7]

The article points out that Cardinal Ratzinger did not know of or approve the transfers, but it was a lower-ranking official who did so. It is unfair to automatically assume that the person in charge knows everything that is going on. Remember that any organization, individuals have certain duties and responsibilities and authority.

Unless said lower-ranking official was required to report every transfer up to His Eminence, why would it be surprising that the official did not mention it (maybe he was trying to cover it up from his boss…not an uncommon phenomenon) and Cardinal Ratzinger did not know what was going on? I do not know Cardinal Ratzinger’s/Pope Benedict XVI’s leadership style, but unless he is prone to major micro-management, it would make sense he would not know everything little thing his underlings do, esp. if said underlings try to hide it.

The bucks stops with whoever is willing and able to make an authoritative decision on a matter.

EDIT: And to automatically assume and say the worst about someone without enough evidence or despite contradictory evidence is to possibly commit calumny and slander.

 

[Dokimas]

Twopekinguys in black; Doki in color

I work in Law enforcement, and I frequently work with children.

Your comment abot being “shocked if it was with kids”, is extremely rude, and uncalled for. Why? It doesn’t shock you when adults abuse children?

Considering the line of work that I am in, I would say I have probably seen a little more of this first hand than most of the posters on here. I’m sure you’re sad to have to say this. Sounds sad to me.

I see teachers who have failed to report, I have seen parents fail to report, and I have seen medical professionals fail to report, all of which are mandated to report suspected abuse.so I suggest you get off your high horse. It’s being on a ‘high horse’ to think it wrong not to report abuse?

 

[BrianH]

Shame on me? How very Christian of you to pass judgement. Well if you read your posted links (I read the first and third (because I’m on my phone and that’s all it will do) but searched about the other two traditions), you would see that the links you posted were refering to that faith traditions stance or opinion about sexual abuse or abuse in general. No cases and what they actually did, no examples, just “we think abuse is bad…”. Those links in no way backed up your point and only proved mine, thank you for posting them for everyone to read. You shouldn’t point fingers about research, as you showed us all, when you point your finger at someone else, you have three more of your own pointing right back.

You passed judgement first with your inaccurate statement. Look what you said

But only the RCC has come forward in the press to address it

That is absurd. Absolutely absurd. All four examples are people addressing it and the statements are public and in many cases sent to the press.

If you want a specific case where a specific name was mentioned…here you go. Now take back your inaccurate statement

Lopez was removed from his pastoral duties immediately after the church learned of the charges last summer, according to a statement released by the Missouri Conference of the United Methodist Church. “The United Methodist Church does not tolerate sexual misconduct of any kind,” the statement said. “Sexual misconduct is a violation of the sacred trust held by clergy and counter to the mission and ministry of the Church. Providing a safe environment for everyone in our churches and their ministries is our highest priority.”

The Methodist Church clearly stated that this minister was FIRED. So that is just one and I bet if I had time I could find thousands…seriously…no person should make an inaccurate statment about only their church has gone public…that is naive or…
Fill in the blanks

 

[BrianH]

The article points out that Cardinal Ratzinger did not know of or approve the transfers, but it was a lower-ranking official who did so. It is unfair to automatically assume that the person in charge knows everything that is going on. Remember that any organization, individuals have certain duties and responsibilities and authority.

Unless said lower-ranking official was required to report every transfer up to His Eminence, why would it be surprising that the official did not mention it (maybe he was trying to cover it up from his boss…not an uncommon phenomenon) and Cardinal Ratzinger did not know what was going on? I do not know Cardinal Ratzinger’s/Pope Benedict XVI’s leadership style, but unless he is prone to major micro-management, it would make sense he would not know everything little thing his underlings do, esp. if said underlings try to hide it.

The bucks stops with whoever is willing and able to make an authoritative decision on a matter.

EDIT: And to automatically assume and say the worst about someone without enough evidence or despite contradictory evidence is to possibly commit calumny and slander.

I do not care if he had 10000 priests under him. A failure to let the boss know that someone sexually abused them should result in termination of the person who did not tell them. A superintendent of schools with over 10000 employess would have been notified.

 

[nsper7]

I do not care if he had 10000 priests under him. A failure to let the boss know that someone sexually abused them should result in termination of the person who did not tell them. A superintendent of schools with over 10000 employess would have been notified.

Then perhaps the underling is to blame. In the end, the person who is to blame is the person who failed to follow the law and proper procedure.

 

[Dokimas]

Twopekinguy in black; Doki in color.

But you can’t fire someone just because of an accusation. If everyone who got accused of something was fired, no one would be working.

I have seen cases (locally) where a man has been accused of rape, assault, or some other crime of violence. He has lost his job, family, standing in the community, all based upon an accusation, and before an investigation or trial. Doesn’t sound like due process.

His reputation is ruined. Slander should be punished. The man should never want the rest of his life.

Then, once the investigation and/or trial is complete, he is found innocent. His reputation is still ruined, he is still unemployed, he has to reconcile with friends and family, all because of an unfounded accusation. His accusers should be made to pay his way the rest of his life (or until his reputation is fully ‘given back’ to him.)

I firmly believe that if it is proven that someone has committed the act, then yes, by all means punish them, and fire them. I also believe that if someone is “accused” of this act, then he should be removed from any ministry that involves children, until the investigation or trial is complete. But not remove him from the priesthood based on an accusation. Agreed

I also have to agree with an earlier poster “Pilgrimage”, when they say: “Common sense is telling me, that while there were obviously some cases of abuse, there are many who have jumped on the financial band wagon”

In this day and age, an accusation can do more harm than a conviction. Why not keep the accused safe from the media while the investigation goes on; especial in the church? How many times have you heard of someone apologizing for making an unfounded accusation? Should be a law, apologize with restitution. How many times have you heard of someone apologizing for beliving the unfounded accusation?

 

[BrianH]

Then perhaps the underling is to blame. In the end, the person who is to blame is the person who failed to follow the law and proper procedure.

No. If procedures were not in place to protect children, responsibility is also on the person who did not see they were in place.
If there is a culture that allows suspected child abusers to not warrant an immediate notification of the supervisor…that is a poorly ran organization.

 

[nsper7]

No. If procedures were not in place to protect children, responsibility is also on the person who did not see they were in place.
If there is a culture that allows suspected child abusers to not warrant an immediate notification of the supervisor…that is a poorly ran organization.

I don’t know what the procedures are in such a situation. Also, depending on the organization, the supervisor may not be the person responsible for implementing new procedures and plans to deal with issues. Who would be responsible for handling such matters in the Archdiocese?

 

[BrianH]

aquabatix
No sensible person could make the statement that only the Catholic Church has gone to the press. Did you check every paper? No. Did you check all ten thousand plus Christian denominations? No.
Did you check anything or just decide to make a statment that cannot be supported. Yes:shrug:
You should take it back. Really…

 

[aquabatix]

I will take back that the RCC was the ONLY ones to go to press. What I will no recant in believing is that 90% of what any search for sexual abuse in a church will reveal is mostly against the Catholic Church. The press focuses in on the RCC more then any other. That my friend is fact, look into it.

Of course I did not read thousands of articles and look into every little house church that wants to think they are a denomination, that is infantile to say or use as a point.