1. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    11 Apr '10 10:28
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

    I simply cannot think of a more awesome thing to do, even if just for the lulz.
  2. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    11 Apr '10 11:021 edit
    Originally posted by Starrman
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

    I simply cannot think of a more awesome thing to do, even if just for the lulz.
    I think it is very sad. The media has fought a long campaign this Easter to undermine the Pope and implicate him the sexual abuse scandal. The evidence is very thin and certainly nothing suggests he has committed 'crimes against humanity'. Dawkin's hysterical calls for the Pope to be arrested only undermine his claims to objectivity. The guy is a total nutcase and has no credibility.
  3. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    11 Apr '10 12:28
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I think it is very sad. The media has fought a long campaign this Easter to undermine the Pope and implicate him the sexual abuse scandal. The evidence is very thin and certainly nothing suggests he has committed 'crimes against humanity'. Dawkin's hysterical calls for the Pope to be arrested only undermine his claims to objectivity. The guy is a total nutcase and has no credibility.
    The question of whether or not he should be arrested rests on whether a crime has been committed or not. If, as Dawkins claims, "the institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law", then why should the pope not be tried? The evidence is not thin at all, he has clearly been instrumental in the concealment of the priest's crimes, so if that concealment is illegal, why would he not be tried?

    By virtue of being the pope?
  4. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    11 Apr '10 12:38
    Originally posted by Starrman
    The question of whether or not he should be arrested rests on whether a crime has been committed or not. If, as Dawkins claims, "the institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law", then why should the pope not be tried? The evidence is not thin at all, he has clearly been instrumental in the concealment of the priest's crimes, so if that concealment is illegal, why would he not be tried?

    By virtue of being the pope?
    I wholeheartedly agree. If there is evidence that Pope Benedict really did engage in cover-ups, then he should be held accountable. I dispute, however, that there is any such evidence and I am skeptical about the claim that he was 'instrumental' in concealment of priests' crimes. As I pointed out in another thread, the Pope has achieved many curial reforms to help victims: in 2001, he brought cases of clerical abuse directly under his congregation; he extended the statute of limitations; as Pope he suspended high-profile priests from ministry and ordered an investigation into the Legionaries of Christ; and finally, he commissioned a visitation into American formation houses and has organised a second into Irish seminaries and religious houses.
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    11 Apr '10 12:47
    Originally posted by Starrman
    The question of whether or not he should be arrested rests on whether a crime has been committed or not. If, as Dawkins claims, "the institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law", then why should the pope not be tried? The evidence is not thin at all, he has clearly been instrumental in the concealment of the priest's crimes, so if that concealment is illegal, why would he not be tried?

    By virtue of being the pope?
    The bottom line is that if the Pope were not a symbol of Christiandom he would not be a target by Dawkins. Its a sad state of affairs really. Dawkins is nothing more than an anti-Christian shill. In fact, it is not really about religion, its about Christianity. He is Christian hater much like TOO.

    I don't argue that the Catholic church has had an issue with pedophiles, however, what other "causes" has Dawkins championed other than causes to attack those within Christiandom? In short, the man is on an atheistic jihad.
  6. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    11 Apr '10 12:49
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I wholeheartedly agree. If there is evidence that Pope Benedict really did engage in cover-ups, then he should be held accountable. I dispute, however, that there is any such evidence and I am skeptical about the claim that he was 'instrumental' in concealment of priests' crimes. As I pointed out in another thread, the Pope has achieved many curial reforms ...[text shortened]... rican formation houses and has organised a second into Irish seminaries and religious houses.
    Okay, well we disagree about the validity of the evidence. However his subsequent acts are of no import to the case in question.
  7. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    11 Apr '10 12:53
    Originally posted by whodey
    The bottom line is that if the Pope were not a symbol of Christiandom he would not be a target by Dawkins. Its a sad state of affairs really. Dawkins is nothing more than an anti-Christian shill. In fact, it is not really about religion, its about Christianity. He is Christian hater much like TOO.

    I don't argue that the Catholic church has had an issu ...[text shortened]... than causes to attack those within Christiandom? In short, the man is on an atheistic jihad.
    That's kind of beside the point if you consider all people who commit crime should be brought to justice. Sure, Dawkins is on an attack run, but that's his thing. Are you suggesting some people should avoid justice if those trying to bring them to it are over enthusiastic?
  8. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    11 Apr '10 12:53
    Originally posted by Starrman
    The question of whether or not he should be arrested rests on whether a crime has been committed or not. If, as Dawkins claims, "the institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law", then why should the pope not be tried? The evidence is not thin at all, he has clearly been instrumental in the concealment of the priest's crimes, so if that concealment is illegal, why would he not be tried?

    By virtue of being the pope?
    What's "institutionalised concealment"?
  9. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    11 Apr '10 12:56
    Originally posted by Palynka
    What's "institutionalised concealment"?
    In legal terms? I wouldn't know.
  10. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    11 Apr '10 13:22
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I think it is very sad. The media has fought a long campaign this Easter to undermine the Pope and implicate him the sexual abuse scandal. The evidence is very thin and certainly nothing suggests he has committed 'crimes against humanity'. Dawkin's hysterical calls for the Pope to be arrested only undermine his claims to objectivity. The guy is a total nutcase and has no credibility.
    I agree about the media with the point that they do harm at times. But on the other hand they've done good in exposing many bads that should be brought to light.
    But I feel this is in God's hands. If he wants this exposed, it will be.
    And I'm still a litttle confusd about this infallibility issue with the Pope. You say from your explination that he can make mistakes as a human but cannot make mistakes with spiritual issues. Where does this issue with sex abuse fit in here? It is a physical one for sure but if he's covered up this issue to protect the church in his view, why is this not a spiritual one?
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    11 Apr '10 13:43
    Originally posted by Starrman
    That's kind of beside the point if you consider all people who commit crime should be brought to justice. Sure, Dawkins is on an attack run, but that's his thing. Are you suggesting some people should avoid justice if those trying to bring them to it are over enthusiastic?
    No, I'm suggesting that wanting justice is one thing, but wanting revenge is quite another. If someone wanted revenge on you, for example, no doubt they could dig up some skeletons in your back yard and have a feild day. It is my contention that if the same charges were leveled against the Pope, namely pediphila, and he was not a Christian, Dawkins would be no where to be found on the issue. That tells me that he has no interest in justice, he just wants revenge.
  12. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    11 Apr '10 13:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    No, I'm suggesting that wanting justice is one thing, but wanting revenge is quite another. If someone wanted revenge on you, for example, no doubt they could dig up some skeletons in your back yard and have a feild day. It is my contention that if the same charges were leveled against the Pope, namely pediphila, and he was not a Christian, Dawkins would be ...[text shortened]... e found on the issue. That tells me that he has no interest in justice, he just wants revenge.
    You're missing the point. Put Dawkins aside for a moment and replace him with someone else. Should the pope stand trial and under what circumstances?
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    11 Apr '10 13:541 edit
    Originally posted by Starrman
    You're missing the point. Put Dawkins aside for a moment and replace him with someone else. Should the pope stand trial and under what circumstances?
    I don't know enough about the issue to say for sure. What I do know, however, is that the Catholic church has done an abysmal job with that particular issue. In fact, I know of many child molesters outside the church that need "dealt with" but for one reason or another they remain free. It's just an issue with power and control. Children are for the most part powerless but their abusers are not. This affords them better legal council on average and the results of which can be seen. As for the Catholic church, they are what is called untouchable in this regard. They are no different than say President Clinton or Michael Jackson in their secual scandels. All that can be done is give them a black eye for what they have done, but they will never see jail time.

    Having said that, Dawkins has no interest in the issue other than the PR nightmare for Christiondom.
  14. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    11 Apr '10 15:59
    Originally posted by whodey
    The bottom line is that if the Pope were not a symbol of Christiandom he would not be a target by Dawkins. Its a sad state of affairs really. Dawkins is nothing more than an anti-Christian shill. In fact, it is not really about religion, its about Christianity. He is Christian hater much like TOO.

    I don't argue that the Catholic church has had an issu ...[text shortened]... than causes to attack those within Christiandom? In short, the man is on an atheistic jihad.
    If any organization that was charged with taking care of children was caught with as much as what priests in the church and the catholic church itself has done then it would have been disbanded a long time ago.

    The only reason it's still in existence is because it represents the religion that so many hold on to.

    The one thing Ratzinger hasn't done that Conrau hasn't mentioned is openly given all information to legal authorities so these priests can truly face justice. Getting suspended from the church is a slap on the wrist for these monsters.
  15. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    11 Apr '10 16:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    No, I'm suggesting that wanting justice is one thing, but wanting revenge is quite another. If someone wanted revenge on you, for example, no doubt they could dig up some skeletons in your back yard and have a feild day. It is my contention that if the same charges were leveled against the Pope, namely pediphila, and he was not a Christian, Dawkins would be ...[text shortened]... e found on the issue. That tells me that he has no interest in justice, he just wants revenge.
    Revenge? What did the church do to him that he wants revenge for?
Back to Top