Pope's anti-materialism message?

[buffalo]

Steven Merten:

Actually it was Pope John Paul II who was in office when the request not to be sued came to Condolisa Rice from the Vatican. It is he that was protected with diplomatic immunity. However Pope Benedict XVI was there too. He would know who and when any such information about bishops moving sexual predetor priests from one group of victims to the next came to both their attention.

The Pope wasn’t Pope in the 60’s and 70’s when these things were happening.

If you are the CEO of a company and 1 of your employees violates a law it is his liablility not yours. Even if you protect his guilt somehow, he is still the one who is guilty. If you change your policy to promote his illegal behavior, then you too are liable.

 

[Steven_Merten]

buffalo:

The Pope wasn’t Pope in the 60’s and 70’s when these things were happening.

If you are the CEO of a company and 1 of your employees violates a law it is his liablility not yours. Even if you protect his guilt somehow, he is still the one who is guilty. If you change your policy to promote his illegal behavior, then you too are liable.

Hello buffalo,

If you think that clergy sexual predetor abuse, its cover up and sexual predetors secretly moved to endanger more victims, did not also accur in the 80’s and 90’s you are sadly mistaken. It happened under Pope John Paul II’s watch as well as before his time.

 

[buffalo]

Steven Merten:

Hello buffalo,

If you think that clergy sexual predetor abuse, its cover up and sexual predetors secretly moved to endanger more victims, did not also accur in the 80’s and 90’s you are sadly mistaken. It happened under Pope John Paul II’s watch as well as before his time.

To be guilty it cannot be a simple as happening under “his watch”. How is he culpable?

 

[Steven_Merten]

buffalo:

To be guilty it cannot be a simple as happening under “his watch”. How is he culpable?

Hello buffalo,

I have clearly stated that if Pope John Paul II didn’t know, he didn’t know. He would then be not culpable in this situation. It would have been nice if Pope John Paul II came out and swore to God and the world that he did not know of bishops with full knowledge secretly moving sexual predetor priests from one unsuspecting group to the next. The Pope did not swear to this in front of God and the world mass media.

If the Pope did have full knowledge that children were being raped and molested due to the process of bishops secretly moving sexual predetors from one unsuspecting group of victims to the next, and he did nothing to warn us, is this a crime? Is this negligence which could be atoned for in civil court if he did not have diplomatic immunity? With diplomatic immunity to the Pope, I guess we will never know. Unless we can find truth elswhere.

 

[Flickker]

Thanks for your answers guys. No doubt I’ll have more questions later. Haven’t quite worked up enought courage to go and ask someone first hand about all this so this forum is a good place to visit for now. Thanks again.

 

[RyanL]

Steven Merten:

If someone breaks down your front door barges in and rapes your son while you are eating your dinner, would it be a crime if you did not set down your knife and spoon long enough to call 911?

Yes, but only because there is a status relationship which is recognized by law - parent/child. There is no such status relationship for priest/Chuch member at common law. Another option for criminal (or civil) liability would be a statutorily defined duty to protect for a class of persons, which of course, with a priest, there isn’t. In that regard (and outside of Confession), the priest is merely a citizen and is not under any obligation to rescue. Additionally, if the facts were such that the priest reasonably feared for his own safety and making any sort of rescue attempt would have reasonable endangered him further, there is no duty to rescue or aid. If you want to argue the law should hold the Holy Father accountable, come prepared to argue the law.

So, yes, in your example there would be a legal obligation and criminal liability. In the priest scenario outside of the priest’s residence (invitee status of the assult victim being another question), there would not be.

When the police come to the house, could not your son have a justifiable greivance that you did nothing while he was being raped?

Again - status relationship is determinite here. Without a legally recognized status relationship, there is no claim under nonfeasance.

Did the Pope, do this toward thousands/ tens of thousands of young victims or did he not?

He did not.

If he didn’t know, he didn’t know.

He didn’t know.

If he did know and did not at least use his world mass media to warn Catholic Parents, is there guilt?

To whom much is given, much is expected. There would be guilt before God, but not before a judge.

I do not want the Pope sued if he is not guilty.

Good, then you don’t want the Pope sued.

I just want to know that he is accountable to justice for his actions in the same way every man is.

He, like all of us, is accountable to God. He is not accountable to a slanderous internet poster with an apparent vendetta.

Did Pope John Paul II sit by idly, with full knowledge, while children were being raped?

Nope.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[MariaG]

Flickker:

Thanks for your answers guys. No doubt I’ll have more questions later. Haven’t quite worked up enought courage to go and ask someone first hand about all this so this forum is a good place to visit for now. Thanks again.

Red Flags are waving in my eyes. “ask someone”. Make sure the someone you ask actually knows what they are talking about. I know some very nice people who “used” to be Catholic who can tell you all about what the Catholic Church teaches and speak with great authority, But are DEAD WRONG. I also know some very nice Catholics who go to church every Sunday who couldn’t accurately explain the Catholic teachings to a 2 year old. So use caution in the “someone” you pick.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Michael_Francis]

I am in the process of cleaning up this thread which was badly hijacked.

Temporarily closed

 

[GoodKnight1443]

Isn’t the sin of materialism worshipping the Items and putting them before God in your life? Owning or possessing “things” is not a sin or hypocritical. Placing their value and presence in your life before that of God is. I hope no one hijacks this thread…

 

[mikew262]

Flickker:

I was interested to read this: wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1129685&tw=wn_wire_story
in which the Pope decries materialism during Christmas celebrations from the balcony of a marble, gold-domed building in the midst of a jewel-encrusted religious icons while wearing giant gold cross.

Isn’t this just a teensy bit hypocritical?

This is a question that catholics frequently have to answer from non-catholics. Sometimes, its hard to defend.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mikew262:

This is a question that catholics frequently have to answer from non-catholics. Sometimes, its hard to defend.

well, what other 2,000 year old body wouldn’t have acquired various items along the way? also, christ’s church is his bride… that’s all you need to remember. and we’re his family, so all that stuff that the vatican “owns” belongs to us. that’s all you need to tell them. then ask them why pope john paul drove a used ford escort even while he was still pope for a few years… the vatican is supported by peter’s pence, which is a collection which is taken every year by diocese around the world for the vatican. and for the past few years, the vatican has been running at a defecit.

edmunds.com/insideline/do/Columns/articleId=107960 (article about the late pope’s ford escort…)

 

[mikew262]

Semper Fi:

and for the past few years, the vatican has been running at a defecit.

Predictable anti-catholic response to that is “because you’ve been using all your money for priest scandal defenses and payoffs”.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mikew262:

Predictable anti-catholic response to that is “because you’ve been using all your money for priest scandal defenses and payoffs”.

well, each archdiocese/diocese is responsible for its own funding. the vatican has nothing to do with that. church structure is like this… each bishop administers his own ‘particular Church’, and to be affiliated with the Catholic Church that particular church needs to affirm what the church teaches. that’s pretty much how it works… and i was speaking about administrative costs and the costs of just running the vatican.