http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

Cheeky Fucker.

I call Godwin. The discussion is over. Bring me the head of Benedict XVI



Tags: Atheist, Benedict, Britain, Catholic, Extreme, God, Nazi, Pope

Views: 145

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's ironic he should suggest that the hate toward Jews was about eliminating their god from society, considering all neo-nazi groups are Christian based, hating the Jews for the execution of their imaginary friend.

I read a report on British protests against the Pope that was on the Pope's side, which stated: "The BBC treats opponents of the Pope as decent campaigners with a voice that deserve to be heard but derides opponents of a mosque at ground zero as redneck right-wingers and racists."

The difference is that the people are opposing the very man who attempts imposing his ridiculous will on modern society, while those opposing the Muslim mosque are merely perpetuating hatred and misunderstanding for those who had nothing to do with the tragedy. Allowing the mosque will demonstrate that the US is not an enemy to Islam. Personally, I hate religion in general, and totally oppose churches not getting taxed when a Martial Arts school does get taxed. But I'm not about perpetuating hatred. That never ends well.

A medley of the speeches.
Say word that's a true atheist patriot and positive person that the whole world (of thinkers) would agree must be granted more a role in government; worldwide.
Now that's when I go "say word!".
Joseph Ratzinger is an evil man who needs to be arrested and charged formally for his inexusable act of giving Pedophiles no punishment in the act of Pedophilia. He was a Nazi as required, but I hold no belief he thinks entirely different now. Yes, Godwin applies to his speech, and I say we either have him tried, or taken out of power.
Sorry, but he wasn't a Nazi. He was forced to go into the Hitlerjugend at age 14, against the will of his anti-nazi father. The idea that this somehow makes him a Nazi is insane.

And he's done more to punish pedophiles than most, for the record. But of course saying that doesn't make me popular here...
which lets him off the hook entirely, of course.

Nope sorry not buying. I'll concede 'the done more than most' provided it comes with it's corollary 'which is still barely nothing', nor the bare minimum to be accorded any kind of respect or patience.

The record of his period as a bishop, as head of the CDF and now as Pope is one of reticence and to have moved but the merest millimetre towards reform and only when pushed, usually as a result of impending private prosecution and civil proceeding and then to omit to making the radical changes necessary to how the Vatican is run that would alleviate most criticism, suspicion and anger.

For example, sending cases of abusive priests to competent investigative authorities with expertise in, for instance, forensics, a matter which is a requirement of the international rights of the child in prosecuting cases of abuse which the Vatican is a signatory, and which by not doing they are in breach of their legal obligations. He could change that but he hasn't and I predict, wont.

For the record I've never called him a Nazi - even if he was in his youth a member of the Hitlerjugend - I was concerned more by the falsehood and irony, underscored by that little fact, of him calling me one.
"The record of his period as a bishop, as head of the CDF and now as Pope is one of reticence and to have moved but the merest millimetre towards reform and only when pushed, usually as a result of impending private prosecution and civil proceeding and then to omit to making the radical changes necessary to how the Vatican is run that would alleviate most criticism, suspicion and anger."

Errrm sorry, but that's not in accordance with the facts. We know that it was Ratzinger who - in defiance of Pope John Paul and his assistants - pushed for the responsibility of having the CDF investigate abuse cases and taking that away from the often incompetent Bishops. That was a massive reform and clearly a very productive one, because in the four years after that, the CDF investigated more than 3000 cases of sexual abuse, including more than 300 cases of child abuse.

"For example, sending cases of abusive priests to competent investigative authorities with expertise in, for instance, forensics, a matter which is a requirement of the international rights of the child in prosecuting cases of abuse which the Vatican is a signatory, and which by not doing they are in breach of their legal obligations. He could change that but he hasn't and I predict, wont."

? He has done exactly that. Since 2001 various sections have been added (or edited) in canon law to state in no uncertain terms that secular authorities always have to inform secular authorities in cases of criminal behaviour.

For example: the USCCB rules clearly state:
ARTICLE 4. Dioceses/eparchies are to report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities. Dioceses/eparchies are to comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and cooperate in their investigation in accord with the law of the jurisdiction in question.

Or the Australian Bishop rules:
"37.1 When the complaint concerns an alleged crime or reportable child abuse, the Contact Person shall tell the complainant of the complainant’s right to take the matter to the police or other civil authority and, if desired, provide assistance to do so. The Contact Person should also explain the requirements of the law of mandatory reporting."

"For the record I've never called him a Nazi - even if he was in his youth a member of the Hitlerjugend - I was concerned more by the falsehood and irony, underscored by that little fact, of him calling me one."

OK. I was responding to Nic, actually ;)
That may be so Matt VDB, but he has to take his part of the blame and shame that falls on the whole of the institution of the church; it's rules, and it's rulers. The relocating of pedophile priests was a vile act that was condoned and encouraged in an organization that Ratzinger was partly responsible for.

That he did a better job than his predecessor did is, as Richard Healy points out, not enough considering the widespread abuse of children.

In my opinion, the Catholic church is causing needless suffering and death due to the promotion of outdated anti-scientific beliefs regarding sexual conduct/behavior.
A (Dutch) comedian said it best: "If you don't play the game, you should not concern yourself with the rules."

So, it is getting better now, so what? How many victims did it took for some decency to get into those manifests? I'm really pissed off considering the supposed respect that we should give to this "holy" church and holy "father".
Hi Rob,

I can't say I'm entirely convinced by the 'shared guilt' argument you make. If I'm in a company and it turns out that some high-ranking officials are committing fraud, does that automatically make me complicit and requires me to take part in the blame? Especially when I then immediately move to change company policy so that this fraudulent behaviour cannot be repeated?
I can see some point there, but as long as Ratzinger didn't actively aid in any cover-up (or passively encourage or let it happen), I'm not seeing much of a case there.

But I wholeheartedly agree with the point that the Church's beliefs on sex are outdated and are causing massive amounts of suffering (particularly on Africa), and I would also agree that the Pope needs to do more about the abuse issue than he has done up to this point (for example, I think he should publish the history of abuse from the 50's until the 80's, just to come clean).
If I had the feeling that these threads were really about criticising Ratzinger for what he really can be held responsible for and for what he really has not done, then I would have no problem; hell, I'd join in! Instead I keep getting the feeling that it's more about perpetuating myths ("he was a nazi!") or ill-informed criticism ("he actively covered up child abuse!") than anything really rational.

That's just my impression, of course.

Cheers,

Matt
Ah yes, I think I see the problem.

USCCB tipped me off , I think the reform effort in America is more advanced than most as it was the scandals that first erupted there (in Massachusetts wasn't it? Cardinal Law etc) and there there has been instituted a zero tolerance policy and much more of the kind of thing that should be instituted more broadly.

There is some good to be found there, sure. One misses the point if all out attack is the only perspective. What confounds me though is why The Vatican requires a separate legal process at all. The 'New Norms' of 2010 as I am led to understand do nothing to reverse the preference for secrecy within the church. ; forgoing the inviolate principle of the confessional for example. In a case where a priest confesses to another priest of an abuse committed within the church the same rules for a miscreant pensioner twirling her rosaries for telling a lie to dotty Ms Foggerty in the shop simply cannot apply.

Something on the order of an independent audit and subsuming under national criminal not the canonical law is I think the end position the catholic church should head for as it is I believe the best way of safeguarding those who may be abused within the church, and crucially for prosecuting those who deserve to be prosecuted and getting the help for those that need it, especially so for the the victims of the abuse.

One worries for example of what future scandals lie as yet unexposed in Latin America, for example as they lay undetected in Ireland for so long. Whatever incremental measures are made along the way these are to be welcomed, as indeed are the pope's comments of sorrow on his recent tour of our green and pleasant islands, I worry though that it won't be enough to and the reform effort is to slow and it still won't properly place the welfare of the child above and beyond the welfare of the church.

Where, incidentally can I read the documents you are citing? Always I am interested in better educating myself.


I was responding to Nic

Fair enough. :-)
Ratzinger who - in defiance of Pope John Paul and his assistants - pushed for the responsibility of having the CDF investigate abuse cases and taking that away from the often incompetent Bishops.That was a massive reform and clearly a very productive one, because in the four years after that, the CDF investigated more than 3000 cases of sexual abuse, including more than 300 cases of child abuse.

Just out of interest, given the number and nature of the cases of abuse that happened prior to and within the period referred to when the CDF assumed control of investigations appertaining thereto - how many priests did the CDF under Ratzinger de-frock and return to the laity, where they would (and should have been) tried by criminal courts using any evidence gathered by the CDF (including confessions of crime)?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service