Should Pope Benedict Resign?

[bookgirl32]

Only church leadership would remove those in authority if found guilty of the crime or cover up.

And another statement displaying your misunderstanding of Church hierarchy in general. What would be an example of this pertaining to the office of the Pope? There isn’t one. I’m NOT stating that a person, even the Pope, if culpable, should not be subject to due penalty. I’m saying that a forced resignation of the office of the Pope would not be appropriate as the due penalty. Do you think Peter should’ve quit and gone off and not been an apostle and had no place in the Church (much less Pope but you’re not Catholic so I’m assuming you don’t believe in papal authority in the first place) because he committed a sin? If being completely sinless is your one and only requirement for any office of authority, much less Christian authority, then you have a major problem, b/c there’s no one qualified.

Civil could would then do thier part for those accused…No, the secular govt has no rule over church authority…It is the church that is to be harmless as a dove, policing it’s own ranks…

Huh?

 

[Zatzat]

You can’t blame someone for something that they did not do.

Quite the contrary…you can blame someone for something that they did not do.

In the case of a mother who is aware that her husband is abusing their children. By her act of silence, you can certainly and justly blame her morally, civilly and criminally for her inaction and silence in allowing the abuse to continue…

 

[momor]

I’d just like to point out something being mentioned in various posts. That we, the faithful, don’t have a good understanding of how the Church hierarchy actually works.

I certainly agree with that. I am finding out new things all of the time that surprise me. I had no idea that bishops operated so autonomously from the Vatican or that there were so many personal protections in canon law for the clergy and religious. Most non-Catholics are even less informed.

For me this points out a couple of problems.

1. Scandal: Actions taken (or not) based on the letter of canon law that do not have the appearance of being just or moral can give rise to scandal. I think the Church must consider this in all her official actions.
   Let me digress to give an example of what the laity must consider regarding scandal. I recently read something about irregular marriages. I’m sorry I don’t remember the source. The substance was that person’s in an irregular marriage (such as divorced and remarried catholics) who had children could be allowed to continue living together while seeking annulment(s) for the good of their children. They would be expected to refrain from all unchaste activity even while living under the same roof and outwardly as married. Following confession, they could be allowed to receive communion. However, they could be required to receive in a parish where their irregular marriage was not known so as not to cause scandal.
   Now if the laity are expected not to cause scandal, even when doing the right thing, how much more so the clergy?
2. Lack of oversight: It has been objectively pointed out that due to the size of the Church we cannot expect those in charge to know everything about their charges. Therefore it seems to me that the laity has an important role to keep an eye on what goes on in their parishes and diocese and report those things that they think are not right and to keep complaining, all the way up the ladder, if they are not being heard. And the Church hierarchy has an obligation to listen and to act when necessary, knowing it cannot have the same intimate knowledge of parish happenings as the laity does.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

You know something, these threads are fascinating in one respect: Mortal Sin is Mortal Sin: Who among us have not committed a mortal sin at one time or another, perhaps stole a little something as a teenager, got super drunk, has sex outside of marriage… …yet we are all ready to skewer people who committed this particular mortal sin.

We confess OUR sins and expect that to be the end of it. Yet we are all ready to take up pitchforks and torches and pursue these people endlessly.

I am not condoning what they did, and I realize how awful the crime is. But still, from a spiritual point of view, all mortal sin has the same end result. It seems that we should do unto others as we would have others do unto us.

Oh ya, and then there’s that little fogginess thing that Jesus always talked about. I have not seen “forgiveness” mentioned once in all of these posts.

 

[momor]

You know something, these threads are fascinating in one respect: Mortal Sin is Mortal Sin: Who among us have not committed a mortal sin at one time or another, perhaps stole a little something as a teenager, got super drunk, has sex outside of marriage… …yet we are all ready to skewer people who committed this particular mortal sin.

We confess OUR sins and expect that to be the end of it. Yet we are all ready to take up pitchforks and torches and pursue these people endlessly.

I am not condoning what they did, and I realize how awful the crime is. But still, from a spiritual point of view, all mortal sin has the same end result. It seems that we should do unto others as we would have others do unto us.

Oh ya, and then there’s that little fogginess thing that Jesus always talked about. I have not seen “forgiveness” mentioned once in all of these posts.

The point you make is fine for those who repent and stop sinning. But what about those who didn’t? The serial abuses and cover-ups are what most (all?) are upset about.

Also, I’m a lot less inclined to forgive and forget when someone ‘repents’ only after being discovered.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

The point you make is fine for those who repent and stop sinning. But what about those who didn’t?

And do you or I know who has and has not stopped?

The serial abuses and cover-ups are what most (all?) are upset about.

And I think those numbers have been blown out of porportion. Most cases are accusations, not convictions. There have been precious few convictions compared to accusations. Are not priests entitled to the same protection as the rest of us?

In my opinion, many Catholics are being led by the nose right where the press wants them to go: Either out of the Church, or at least doubting it. They, and Satan, just love to see us in a frenzy feeding on our own. I choose not to play along.

These forums full of these threads are Testament to the success of the press, to turn us against ourselves.

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying that Catholic logic is somehow special?

This is a good way of putting it. You see, Catholics reason according to the Teachings of the Apostles that have been preserved in the Church as Sacred Tradition. You are separated from these Apostolic Teachings, so your “reasoning” is a departure from what they believed and taught.

To the extent that much of Catholic doctrine runs counter to biblical teaching, I agree that much “Catholic logic” is unsound.

I am sure it seems that way to you. In the last 500 years, the children of the Reformers have continued to drift further and further away from the Apostolic Faith. Most don’t even recognize it anymore, and believe that Catholics “added” things.

The Pope is not Sovereign in the Kingdom of God.

Peter was given a special charism to feed and care for the sheep. He passed on this responsibility to his successor, and he to his, up to the present day. Perhaps you have an authority problem?

Where child abuse and homosexuality occur under the leadership of any “leader”, the people in the community most certainly have a right to demand the removal of the leader from his position of influence.

Amen!

Root out the wicken man from among you!

 

[Zatzat]

These forums full of these threads are Testament to the success of the press, to turn us against ourselves.

These forums full of these threads are Testament to the success of the people in refusing to ignore abuses that take place within the Church.

 

[tweetymom]

These forums full of these threads are Testament to the success of the people in refusing to ignore abuses that take place within the Church.

Amen

 

[momor]

And do you or I know who has and has not stopped?

And I think those numbers have been blown out of porportion. Most cases are accusations, not convictions. There have been precious few convictions compared to accusations. Are not priests entitled to the same protection as the rest of us?

In my opinion, many Catholics are being led by the nose right where the press wants them to go: Either out of the Church, or at least doubting it. They, and Satan, just love to see us in a frenzy feeding on our own. I choose not to play along.

These forums full of these threads are Testament to the success of the press, to turn us against ourselves.

By your response I can only assume you have not looked at Church evidence that is available to you. You want to blame the media.

 

[Agape_Thom]

The Church can’t make him an un-Cardinal. He may as well work. This was an appropriate course of action.

He could certainly be de-frocked.

 

[JReducation]

Quite the contrary…you can blame someone for something that they did not do.

In the case of a mother who is aware that her husband is abusing their children. By her act of silence, you can certainly and justly blame her morally, civilly and criminally for her inaction and silence in allowing the abuse to continue…

You’re pointing to a sin of omission. But there is no proof that Benedict committed such a sin. Therefore, you cannot blame him for something that he did not do. That’s what I’m pointing to.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

He could certainly be de-frocked.

There is not such thing as defrocking in the Catholic Church. You can be dismissed from the clerical state, but the only way that you can be dismissed is if you actually commit the act of pedophilia. A dismissal is not defrocking. The man will always be a bishop, but he would have to live as if he were a lay man. However, they still have the same poewr as any other bishop.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Black_Knight]

He could certainly be de-frocked.

Really? And this is for what? Bad judgment in handling a scandal in his diocese? So, now he’s assigned to a pastoral role right under the Vatican’s watchful eye and won’t move for the rest of his life. And that handled by Pope John Paul II, not the current Holy Father.

Now…what relevance does this have to Pope Benedict XVI? None.

 

[markomalley]

He could certainly be de-frocked.

Maybe your Protestant ministers can, but those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders receive an indelible mark that can no more be removed than the mark received at baptism. The most that could happen is that he could be dismissed from the clerical state. But, even then, he would objectively still be a bishop…as that can, objectively, never be removed.

 

[CMatt25]

You’re pointing to a sin of omission. But there is no proof that Benedict committed such a sin. Therefore, you cannot blame him for something that he did not do. That’s what I’m pointing to.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html?pagewanted=1

No proof only if beyond reasonable doubt you believe Ratzinger never saw the memo and only if beyond reasonable doubt, unlike Frs Wolf and Gruber, if you can rule out he never saw it nor was ever told about the pedophile being returned to a pastoral role. Perhaps you can make the statement he did not do it. I’m not quite there yet though to say so with such certainty.

 

[JReducation]

nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html?pagewanted=1

No proof only if beyond reasonable doubt you believe Ratzinger never saw the memo and only if beyond reasonable doubt, unlike Frs Wolf and Gruber, if you can rule out he never saw it nor was ever told about the pedophile being returned to a pastoral role. Perhaps you can make the statement he did not do it. I’m not quite there yet though to say so with such certainty.

The rule is that unless you have some evidence, you can’t make an accusation that he did something wrong. One can say, why didn’t he see this piece of information or that? That’s a different issue. But to accuse, because the media says that he did it is wrong.

There are several points in the media’s report that don’t add up in the Munich case.

1. The priest was from another diocese and was not transferred to Munich. He was sent there for therapy.
2. The request that was made was for permission to stay at a rectory while in Munich.
3. The message from the other bishop was that the priest was going to therapy for sexual impropriety. That term could cover a multitude of sins. In those days, people considered it indiscrete to ask for details. The bishop who sent the priest to Munich probably felt that he was not free to reveal what was shared with him confidentially unless there was a need to know. He may have beleived that Ratzinger did not have a need to know. This was a mistake, but it was a common one of that time.
4. The Vicar General assigned the priest to helpout in a parish. The Vicar General has that authority. Unless it’s a pastor, the bishop does not have to involve himself in assignments.

It is very plausible that the Archbishop was out of this loop, given the time when this took place. This is why I give him the benefit of the doubt. The press has not gone into the practices and regulations of the Church and society at that time. It wants to report and fill in the blanks. I don’t think it’s right to do that, but I can’t stop them.

As to resigning, that’s ludicrous. A head of state does not resign unless he cannot do the job. We can’t ask for saints to occupy the Chair of Peter. We can only ask that they do the best job possible. These problems began during the papacy of Pius XII until the Papacy of John Paul II. These other men did not know what was happening either. Many bishops did not understand what they were dealing with either.

In charity, we have to understand that this is very possbile, given the time in history and the culture in which these bishops were operating. It is very likely that they did not do anything with malicious intent. In this case, it is very plausible that Ratzinger did not know much about the priest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Jermosh]

While Joseph Druce pleaded insanity due to the fact that he, himself, had been molested as a child, I did not know that he was actually PROVEN insane. Hopefully, you can provide substantiation for your claim. Meanwhile, are you saying that all “people who hate pedophiles” are locked up in prison?

There is nothing to substantiate, at the very least you can call him mentally unstable, as again people get attacked and killed in prisons all the time. Attempting to state this was a Catholic hate crime is a pretty far stretch.

The “full knowledge of the hierarchy” usually came after the first (or second or third) offense. Many of our Bishops sent the offenders to St. Lukes for pyschological help, as homosexuality & pederasty were thought, at that time, to be a form of mental illness & curable. In fact, many of these men were pronounced “cured” & sent back to their Bishops by the psychiatrists. One noteworthy bit is that the head of this hospital, Father Michael Peterson, died of AIDS in 1987.

Some of our hierarchy were homosexual/ pederasts themselves &, as such, so afraid of blackmail that they moved these priests around for protection for themselves.

**Others had knowingly ordained gays & that has been always been forbidden in the Catholic Church. John XXIII, Himself, in 1961… approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect. **However, during the 1970s and 1980s, that policy was widely ignored, particularly in North America. Some of our hierarchy kept these men in the priesthood rather than admit that they had been disobedient to the Pope John XXIII & to all of the Church teachings re homosexual priests.

By 1985, (see the Peterson, Mouton report), it was evident that pederasty was not “curable”, therefore any member of our hierarchy who continued to move these men after that is guilty of enabling abusers, a terrible sin.

As for your remark about the 'wierdness" of linking to NAMBLA…I don’t think so, especially since a Catholic priest was invovled in the founding of this horrible group:
The most shocking detail about NAMBLA’s founding conference was the involvement of “Father” Paul Shanley, representative of Boston’s Cardinal [Humberto] Medeiros for sexual minorities…"

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_11_18/ai_n25048769/

I am sickened, hearbroken & angry about these horrendous acts of sexual abuse for which many of our priests are respsonsible. But, I’m not going to pretend that this is a scandal of Pedophilia when it is one of Pederasty…gay priests preying on pubescent & post-pubescent boys. Since Pope Benedict is dealing with the homosexual nature of our abuse crisis, to advise that he should resign is ridiculous.

Educate yourself about this scandal.

Nice attempt at a misdirect, but none of it actually means anything. The facts still remain that pedophile priests across the world were knowingly moved around. Try to dress that up as you like, it is still the facts. Also the scandal involved all ranges of children, do not attempt to state that one is better then the other in terms of age, that’s just icky, rape is rape and horribly disgusting.

 

[anode]

So, getting back to the original question of this thread, Should the Pope Resign?

No, I don’t think that he should resign. However, the remainder of his papacy will be preoccupied with the tsunami of abuse cases rising in Europe, and any more coming from the US. The Vatican is going to be preoccupied with this from now on.

 

[Jermosh]

I don’t know what people want the Church to do with Cardinal Law that does not violate either canon law or the sacrament of Holy Orders… There is a limit to what you can do.

At the very least, not invite him to a world class event with prestigious and honored guests. All the other stuff aside, why does this not bother you?

BTW he was the chaplain in MD before he got his promotion into his current role. So you want a promotion, there you go.