A Bid to arrest the Pope

[Fat1Fared]

I kid you not, this is very much true and very much legal, two Atheist authors have set off a bid to use British Legal system to have the Pope arrested if he comes to Britain as planned in September, this is because of his actions over the sex abuse situation, it was believed, that as a "head of state", he could have diplomatic amenity here, however under the same rules used to arrest Chilean dictator Pinochet, the two atheist authors Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens, believe his "county" does not have the political status under UN and national law to be afforded such protection and several lawyers have coincided this is in fact true, leaving him open to arrest for charges in regards to conspiracy, complicity and cohesion to sexual abuse of others

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

This will be an interesting trial if it takes place.

[JesusRocks]

I agree with Gcar...

Would be interesting... If it happens, I'mma grab the transcript of the case as soon as it's published.

[Fat1Fared]

well would be interesting, but in all likelihood, he simply won't come to our heven lands lol, I must say I was surprised at the somewhat positive response this has received, clearly this whole affair has done more damage to catholic church than people first thought, though the fact their yearly letter here was saying how they forgave beetles for their heven acts, then have to say they themselves are clearly sweating

-Though I maybe bias, I actually do agree with this, I mean I never actually had anything against this pope, but this is a shameful act at best, disgusting at worst and will only elevate the churches past problems with this issue, not help it (then again what do I know, I am just an immoral atheist who is heading straight to hell, no passing go <__<)

[grimfang999]

to be honest, while I hate the Catholic Church for the tag it has placed on religion: which is a form of dominating control, I still have a bit of respect for the pope, dispite I am against what he has stood for.

I would say that its unfair to put this on him. I mean, yes in an organisation if it goes bust it can be placed on the owner or council for making the wrong decisions, but when it reaches a point where it gets too large it becomes more difficult to maintain. The Catholic Church is among the largest in the world in a sense, owning immense land and wealth and having many customers, putting it in business terms. If a number of small areas go against the companies philosophies and cover it up, it will be difficult to find out until a thorough investigation or accusing evidence is placed.

Secondly, It doesnt seem likely to be a conspiracy. What good would plotting pedophillia do? Especially for the Chruch, which at its core is puristic.

At the same time though, The absolute purist aproach is foolish now and must be changed for the times. Look at the Orthodox church, which had a good position of logic when they set up their rules. Unlike the Catholics (if my information is correct), priests and bishops could get married, though this must be before they take their place as one. This logic then will reduce the number of sexual acts, as men have needs which will usually need to be fulfilled at one point or another.

If the Catholic chruch will not fully adapt to the point of necessity, then he can be blamed for not changing the views to meet modern needs.


now, looking at it from a less logical approach, from a spiritual perspective He has not done anything wrong and tried to approach it in a way he can. Whats more, when he is considered to be a holy man of sorts, its unfair for the catholics who wish to see him in the country and get his blessings. It is unfair to take that right away from so many people.


now, lets also look at this at a relationship/social issue. there are over a billion catholic in the world still. Many countries around the world, even very powerful countries like Spain, Italy, and France still have majority Catholic believers. The arresting of the pope, will almost definately cause outcrys and riots against Britain for the atrocious act, and it may lead to more political levels such as a temporary closing of trade, and relationships would fall. Our economy cannot take closed borders for the currant time, and damaged relationships could further lead to anti-government bombings as threats from people who take things to extremes. We cannot arrest the pope for the good of the masses in the risk of causing a snowball effect.

its a risk and an extremely foolish one with no benefits except for a temporary laugh for Athiests while the world shakes its head in disapointment

[Fat1Fared]

Grim, it does not matter who you are or what you say you stand for, No man is above the law of man even if he believes he is part of the rule of god

-And Grim, he would not be arrested for conspiracy to the act itself, but conspiracy to prevente the course of justice by being partie to the covering up of the "said" acts

-Finally, if those Catholic's want to riot, let them, why you ask?

1=If you step down to people rioting (let alone a fear of rioting,) then may as well step down to any form of terrorism (besides that would probably be the final nail in this churches coffin, as proves they ain't as peaceful as make out)
2=Those people who wish to judge anyone unhappy with the pope here, then they should look at themselves first,
3=Just because this makes the catholic's unhappy, doesn't main it is wrong, I mean allowing gay marriage makes them unhappy as well, but we don't really care, why, because realise their are more important things to balanced society than keeping religious groups happy all time (now do not get me wrong, I think sometimes in this area christains get blunt end of stick more than others, but that is a different matter altogether which holds no place here as what the pope did was wrong, as the head of the organisation behind it, he will be one to face charges over it application)

-Oh and finally grim, believe it or not, we atheists do not spend our twilight hours potting ways to make religious groups into jokes (they do that themselves) we just do not agree with their abuse of children in this way or their leaders handling of this situation

[AsteriskRocks]

I agree with Gcar...

Would be interesting... If it happens, I'mma grab the transcript of the case as soon as it's published.

Do want.

Please post it here, if you get a copy and IF it were to happen.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Really?

This situation has gotten completely out of hand. The whole scandal wasn't the Pope's fault.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/03/31/2010-03-31_fairness_for_the_pope.html

In short:
What exactly did then-Cardinal Ratzinger [Pope Benedict] do wrong? His office approved the trial and waived the statue of limitations. Those are not the makings of a coverup.

People need to stop listening to the angry columnists and start listening to the facts. YES, there have been major scandals and cover-ups. NO, these are not good things. BUT stop pointing the finger at the Pope and get on with life.

I don't care what you believe, but there are people in the media who practically thrive in attacking the Catholic Church. If you read that article Maureen Dowd wrote for the New York Times, you can see that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/opinion/31dowd.html

I know that I'll probably sound like I'm overreacting and biased due to the fact that she's talking about my own religion (and heck, I probably am biased), but I'm still pretty certain that if she had said this crap about Islam (for example), she'd be so much more hated and considered more intolerable.

EDIT: I would try these for good measure, too.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxYmUzMTQ1YWUyMzRkMzg4Y2RiN2UyOWIzNDVkNDM=

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0329.htm

http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis

The last two sources would under normal circumstances be considered 'biased,' but that doesn't necessarily make them false.

If there are any GOOD articles criticizing the Pope (that don't rely on The New York Times as a major source), I'd like to see them. It also helps if they're not emotionally charged.

And one more thing... a transcript of the trial would be interesting indeed. It just seems so unnecessary. I mean, why even bother? There are better people to accuse for sexual abuse.

[AllisonWalker]

^More public school teachers are touching kids than Catholic priests are. :/

[mystra]

as a former catholic and one who knows people on both sides of the pedo issue (priest wrongly accused & someone accusing) i'd say this is a very good thing. someone needs to be held accountable and if it's proven beyond a doubt that the pope did indeed cover up the facts then he deserves to be punished for that. i bet the priests are thinking "damn whatever happen to the old days when the eunuchs didn't complain!" (sorry couldn't resist)

[MrsSallyBakura]

^More public school teachers are touching kids than Catholic priests are. :/

Yes, absolutely.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml

Charol Shakeshift did a lot of research about this.

I also find it odd how sex abuse among Protestant ministers (who are typically allowed to marry) exists too, yet I don't think I've ever heard a single story about it on the news. :smiley5:

Sexual abuse against children should never ever exist, but unfortunately it does. It's just that the media only points to certain groups, and that's not fair.

I do think that Catholic officials who have been responsible (or could potentially be responsible) for covering up sex scandals are learning from this... it is wrong to cover such serious issues up, and it's better to excommunicate them than it is to transfer them to another parish.

[ThePRPD]

I kid you not

Is there an article about this possible arrest attempt? I'd like to read it.

[MrsSallyBakura]

>_>
<_<
>_>

One more link...

http://www.zenit.org/article-3922?l=english

It also helps to know... back to the teachers issue, I remember hearing some stories on the news about teachers who get transfered from school to school... for financial reasons, mostly.

I think it's a cultural thing, actually, to cover up sex scandals. It's the sad, sad truth of our world, and even religious institutions have been a slave of sorts to it. :/

All that being said, my point is that I don't think that the British Court has as many grounds to sue Pope Benedict as they think.

[mystra]

beyond the church's conspiracy cover up no one mentions the media conspiracy. one exists and it's right there in our faces. that roman catholic church is a world wide institution with great wealth and control. the man or men (meaning human, i'm not being sexist) that bring them down would be significant in history. people have been trying to do this for hundreds of years with no success. i think now it's more possible (though i doubt it will ever happen) than in the past. the church can't simply kill off it's detractors as it once was able to do.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Aside from the fact that the Catholic Church isn't actually all that rich (though yes, it does have a lot of power as a religious institution), you bring up a really interesting point.

I think it's more possible than in the past because of the influence that the media has. The media is everywhere, and people will believe an emotionally-charged attack against the Catholic Church if you make it sound convincing enough.

[Underling]

^More public school teachers are touching kids than Catholic priests are. :/

PTA covers it up does it? What utter bullshit.

Putting aside how retarded the "LOL OTHER PEOPLE ARE RAPING KIDS SO IT'S A-OK" argument is, the point is that no other organisation has actively sought to systematically protect the offenders and silence the victims of rape on such a huge fucking scale.

All that being said, my point is that I don't think that the British Court has as many grounds to sue Pope Benedict as they think.

SUE him? Who the fuck is talking about SUING him?

I'm guessing the lawyers heading up the case know somewhat more about intentional law than you.

[AllisonWalker]

That's not the point, Underling. People just go after the Catholic Church more so than others because their cases of sexual abuse, for whatever reason, are showed more by the media than others. It's an unfair bias when there's plenty of other religious and educational groups who target kids too.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Sorry, I meant to type arrest. Derp.

Putting aside how retarded the "LOL OTHER PEOPLE ARE RAPING KIDS SO IT'S A-OK" argument is, the point is that no other organisation has actively sought to systematically protect the offenders and silence the victims of rape on such a huge fucking scale.

Well no, molesting children is never OK, it's just that the media makes it sound like Catholic priests are pretty much the only people who go about doing it. This is just untrue.

People blame celibacy for priests molesting children, but people who are/have been married are just as likely - if not, more - to sexually abuse children or teenagers. I think that's the point that Allison was getting at.

The statistics about priests molesting children is incredibly fuzzy, due to both the media and the church either blowing things out of proportion or hiding things (respectively). Do we actually know how 'huge' the sex scandal is in the church?

[Underling]

I'm going to talk slowly now, because apparently this is an incredibly difficult concept to grasp.

IT'S NOT.
THE NUMBER.
OF CASES.

IT'S THE COVERING UP.
AND THE PROTECTION GIVEN TO THE OFFENDERS.
WHICH HAS BEEN SYSTEMATIC AND ORGANISED.

NOT SPORADIC.
LIKE IT IS IS WITH OTHER SETS OF PEOPLE.
SUCH AS TEACHERS.

[MrsSallyBakura]

No need to use all-caps, dude. We're not morons, even if you think we are.
(Oh wait, I forgot, your perception of us is ever-so truthful and must be worshiped. :P)

But anyways...

Arguably, the case with teachers is pretty systematic too... if a teacher gets caught molesting a child or teenager, they get sent to another school. Maybe it's not as systematic as the Church, due to the fact that there are multiple school districts as opposed to one Church, but it's a similar concept. And the media doesn't explode about teachers as much as it does about priests.

But you're right, it's not about numbers. And it's absolutely wrong to cover up a scandal.

But the issue is that people are blaming the current Pope for one particular case. Was the current pope really at fault for covering up even this one case?

[Underling]

Was the current pope really at fault for covering up even this one case?

If a signed letter isn't proof enough for you I don't know what is?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612457.stm

And excuse me if I get a little angry when hundreds of kids get raped and people claim the main problem is the media being mean to the church.

[grimfang999]

to back sally up, I did say that the Catholic Church has over a billion people worshiping under it. that many churches cannot all be watched by one man. If something is kept hidden by the person who commited it (which is the most likely), then only the person who commited the offense and the victim are to blame for it not being exposed. if it was exposed but kept hidden by someone slightly higher, then its their fault. Since this goes up in a heirarchy, starting up from the bottom, there is less chance of them knowing the truth or the size of the issue. Thus, since the pope is at the top, he can only identify cases which are local or exposed to the entire chain.


In short, you cant blame him if he did not know, and it doesnt seem likely that he did.

[Underling]

In short, you cant blame him if he did not know, and it doesnt seem likely that he did.

You'd have a point if we were just talking about the abuse, but moving priests around to protect them from prosecution is not something that can be done quietly.

Not to mention he used to be the guy directly in charge of dealing with sex abuse scandals.

So no, you're talking bullshit.

[grimfang999]

well when you talk about that point, then that is true. In that area it can be considered the person in charge. I would study the point a bit more in depth except I am going in min so ill just agree with you for the time

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

there is knowledge within the church of sex abuse scandles, as a few diocese have tried to settle with victims for large sums.

http://www.seattlearch.org/FormationAndEducation/Progress/022006/Spokane+Diocese+Settlement+2-9-06.htm

http://newsminer.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Fairbanks+Catholic+diocese+creates+new+abuse+settl ement+plan%20&id=4155057-Fairbanks+Catholic+diocese+creates+new+abuse+settl ement+plan&instance=home_news_window

[greenthunder17]

i think this is based on the fact that the pope only give them a slap on the wrist i know i would be pissed off if i was one of the families oh and by the i am part of the protestant religion

[MrsSallyBakura]

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert here, but the BBC article says that the letter was a series among many that is taken out of context from the rest of the reason why that letter was signed in the first place.

I know this next source is a Catholic website (and most likely considered biased), but it explains the context of the letter in more detail, and that the letter wasn't signed to delay 'priest sacking.'
Perhaps it was the consequence of this letter, I have no idea, but from the looks of it, the letter was signed because priests were getting dispensations left and right, whereas a married couple getting an annulment in the Church was a lot more difficult. That was contradictory to Catholic teaching that says: once a person became a priest, he is always a priest.

The article also explains that there was nothing in the letter that says that a bishop couldn't remove a priest from his ministry. There is a difference between removing a priest from his job and giving up the priesthood altogether. So this letter, according to this source, still allows for the removal of priests - it just takes more care when considering taking the priesthood away from them altogether.
Kind of like how in America (at least), if you are married in the Catholic Church, you can civilly divorce from your spouse at any time, but you can't remarry in the Catholic Church until you get an annulment from them.

That might be a horrible explanation of the article, so here it is in full: Click (http://catholicworldreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=168:lets-get-the-story-straight&catid=37:exclusive&Itemid=54)

I have to be honest... if it were any other group trying to defend themselves if they believed they were being wrongfully attacked, and their articles were as detailed as the ones I've been reading about on the issue, I'd at least give them the benefit of the doubt. Every group has a right to defend itself.

And excuse me if I get a little angry when hundreds of kids get raped and people claim the main problem is the media being mean to the church.

You're missing the point, again. The media has a right to cover sex scandals, and a right to be critical. The issue is that they're blowing their facts out of proportion and not doing enough research.

And now that you're bringing numbers onto the table, don't just be angry at the Catholic Church. Hundreds of children are also abused by parents, caretakers, educators, and non-Catholic religious leaders. Abuse doesn't need to be systematically organized in order for it to be terrible.

EDIT: Also, for those interested, the Vatican just published these guidelines related to sex abuse cases. http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/b6_en.htm

[Underling]

You're missing the point, again. The media has a right to cover sex scandals. The issue is that they're blowing their facts out of proportion and not doing enough research.
Give me one example of something the mainstream media has said which is demonstrably "out of proportion".

Abuse doesn't need to be systematically organized in order for it to be terrible.
But it does in order for it to be classified a crime against humanity under international law.

[TheOcean]

If anyone would like the athiest's side of things....

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/you_cant_trust_a_murdoch_paper.php#comments

[Ichooseyoucardgame]

I fell as though they put them in JAIL not just say "no that was a bad thing you did go sit in the corner" because the worst that i have heard they did is remove them from preisthood (or w/e) if there have been instances where they have did worse tell me and i fell as though they should bring back stoning or atleast an eye for an eye

[MrsSallyBakura]

Give me one example of something the mainstream media has said which is demonstrably "out of proportion".

I posted an opinion article by Maureen Dowd from the New York Times in my first post on this thread. There are several more opinion articles where that came from, either from Dowd herself or from other columnists. They rely on their emotionally-charged wording to gain readers' attention instead of facts. Even if it's an opinion, you should back up your opinion with facts, not angry vocabulary.

That's more-or-less what I mean by blowing things out of proportion. The factual articles mostly leave out information. I'll give credit to the BBC for mentioning that the Vatican said that the letter shouldn't be taken out of context, but the article didn't go on to explain its intended context - that was something people had to research independently, and how many people are going to do that?

But it does in order for it to be classified a crime against humanity under international law.

True, I was just mentioning that the Catholic Church's priests aren't the only people we should be angry at.

This is rather interesting - I'm blown away by how much information I researched, lol. Imagine how productive I could have been had I been doing schoolwork like I was supposed to... :P

[Underling]

They rely on their emotionally-charged wording to gain readers' attention instead of facts.
Who, journalists? Surely you jest.

[Fat1Fared]

Ok, read this in a calm voice in your head (whoever reads this) because otherwise your going to add an aggressive intent which is not there

Ok, guys this is how it stands, Sally said "This is getting out of hand" well at first I actually quite annoyed at this comment, which why i did not reply until a day later, now reading it again, I am actually amused by it in the way all ironically black humour amuses people, because fundamentally she is right, this is out of hand, it got out of hand when those priests abused those children, it got even further out of hand when the church then decided to try and cover this up, to protect itself and then it went insane levels when the of that church rubber stamped the move, however the one place it did not get out of hand, is when the rest of the world decided to recoil in horror at such acts, sorry if that hurts your feelings, but for want of better term, your church is the bad guys in this, not the injured party, stop thinking you are, because you will get no pity here as sadly, though I know we lesser religions and atheists have no moral standings compared to you, but happily for all (well apart from the catholic church) we do not accept such actions, even if we be but mere men.

-Now I see 4 points which need addressing

1=Is the pope in the wrong here?

=Sorry to say this, but despite being head of a self-proclaimed moral group, he does not have a leg to stand on here. Now one in their right mind really believes that the pope was running some black-ops mission from inside a base of evil or whatever, but what we do believe, is that he was at the top of a very big pile of poo and knowingly allowed members of his organisation to protect child abusers from justice to protect themselves. Now not to offend anyone here but Dawkins and Hutchins are smarter men than anyone here and though they would probably want everyone involved, held to account, sadly that cannot happen, so it will those at the top who take the fall here and that in this case is the pope. This is why, though Tong Blair was not the only person involved in the illegal wars he started, he was the one we brought to trail, because book stops with the leader and those under him will be dealt with through the dibble effect or sadly escape, as justice is not perfect, but it is more than in its rights to hold the people here to account, even if it be made by mere-men, lest they are not men who are trying to help others escape from their crimes

2=More teachers rape than priests

=Well if we look past the woeful (edited out) use of stat's here and the fact also lot more teachers in the world, the defence, he did, so why can't I, is not a defence, simple as that and also those schools were not found to be trying to hide their teachers when these cases came to light, in fact, they are very much highlighted because schools know they need to be shown to be strong on such actions

3=This is all the Media's fault

=No it is not, this is the churches fault as despite what it would like us to believe, you are not morally above anything and I would be more worried if people supported the catholic church here, because surely we should recoil at such acts as i) child abuse and ii) the covering up of child abuse

=However i also think, that a slight half-truth needs dealing with here, believe it or not, media's in such things as this rarely change opinions, in fact, one reporter put it quite nicely, what they really do is "Is play the feelings of their readers and watchers, knowing that stating other peoples opinions as fact is good way to gain themselves sales!" and so really the papers here are showing opinion, not making it

=However lets say the above is wrong and this is a media vendetta, no actually its two very intellectual men being sickened by the actions of the church and wanting someone to be held to account and these are not men who will be controlled by the media, now they are bias against the church, but that is neither here nor there, because even the natural groups agree with them here, the church is not the injured party here, those who were abused and the decided accountability are and the churches continuing indignation and lack of regard for them, believing somehow it is the injured party is the saddest thing of all here, because even now, the catholic church shows no remorse or sorrow to those it wronged.

PS also I notice some of the people damning the bias media, decided to bias media to support themselves <facepalm>

4=Islam gets better treatment than us

=Oh cry me a river, now after saying anyone against the here is merely being lead by the media like mindless puppets, you say the worlds biggest media stereotype going.

-First, this is not a defence, even if their is weakness and doublings standings to justice here, 2 wrongs to one case, do not make your case right -_-

=But that is believing there is a double standard here and ignoring the fact, bit of difference between allowing someone to cover their face and allowing someone to cover up/protect child abusers. There is not a double standing in religion dealings, (well not as much as made out, of course mistakes happen, but no where near the existent made out) now as someone who has read a lot of these supposed double standard cases (hell I have had to do casework for my job in 2 of them) I can tell you, this is a place where media bias really comes in because well, there is bias in public opinion here, and lets take the two current cases of note in this area:

1=Christian nurse not allowed to wear cross for fear of offence=WRONG=She is allowed to wear cross and on full show, she is just not allowed to wear it on a chain, because in a hospital this unhealthy, so if have to have it on a chain must be covered completely, otherwise need to wear it in a wear it is completely attracted to their clothing IE pinned on.

2=Islamic Female-doctors are allowed to completely cover faces=WRONG=They are not allowed to wear their head scafes at all, when dealing with patients at all, but when not dealing with patients, then they are

-However like said before, this is completely different to child abuse anyway and the fact remains they have not been found to be hiding child abusers from accountability, now in serious areas such a "terrorism" we have invaded their countries, bombed their homes, passed completely injustice laws to remove all their human rights, stole their resources, placed puppet governments in their homelands and held hundreds of them without trail, where subject to things ranging from torture all way up to murderer.

=In short, I really do not think we are that kind to the Islamic groups at all, no matter how much we like to think we are

-But all of this is irrespective anyway, as the simply truth here is, the Catholic Church has done wrongs here and accountability must be found because they are not the victims, they are the ones who committed an atrocitious set of acts

[grimfang999]

all im saying myself is that while the catholic church has done this, the pope should not be arrested. Just by arresting him it will do more harm than good and these cases may continue to appear. why not just go straight to the sources? The priests can still be priests in jail can they not? In the end, its not really the popes job to seperate the molesters from victims, since they can still do it out of work, and in work, as Sally pointed out, the priest cannot leave the priesthood after they enter. So then, should the pope be arrested or the priests who commited the crimes?


I still am standing by some of those points which I previously mentioned about the harm which may come out of this act

[Fat1Fared]

Grim, the priests have been arrested, the pope will be arrested because the catholic church tried to silience those involved and tried to hide evidence and cover up these actions, so as to stop it going public, which meant that several child abusers almost escaped with any accountability being found

[grimfang999]

alright enough of what there is lawfully. lets talk more on Ethics. Yes, he can be accused on the grounds of hiding these cases, but can you please highlight any advantages to the world for his arrest? And by advantages I mean for the good of the people of the worlds public

[mystra]

another stupid story
retired catholic bishop blames pedophilia on jews (http://www.salon.com/news/antisemitism/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/04/12/bishop_blames_pedophilia_jews_open2010)

[TitanAura]

another stupid story
retired catholic bishop blames pedophilia on jews (http://www.salon.com/news/antisemitism/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/04/12/bishop_blames_pedophilia_jews_open2010)
I very very seriously ponder how, simply HOW, antisemitism still exists in countries that have an institutionalized education system regardless of how shitty it may be. I'm pretty sure all schools teach kids about WWII and the holocaust regardless right? I mean, at least the less violent bits about the underground railroad and how Hitler was a dick and so forth. Wasn't the point of that to teach us about how blaming an entire race of people for our problems is a *stupid idea*? I also wanna know who came up with the phrase "the Jews have all the money and the whites have all the power" because let's be honest here; The whites own everything including you. I say this as a person who's lineage is whiter than a snowman, (no seriously, my ancestry goes back to John Carver, who was one of the leaders of the original pilgrims, you know, one of the people that started the ball rolling with all of that delightful history with this country's native americans?), the only people you could point the finger at, accuse for being the reason for all that is wrong in the world, and be RIGHT is white people. And we deserve it god damn it.

[Gary]

I kid you not, this is very much true and very much legal, two Atheist authors have set off a bid to use British Legal system to have the Pope arrested if he comes to Britain as planned in September, this is because of his actions over the sex abuse situation, it was believed, that as a "head of state", he could have diplomatic amenity here, however under the same rules used to arrest Chilean dictator Pinochet, the two atheist authors Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens, believe his "county" does not have the political status under UN and national law to be afforded such protection and several lawyers have coincided this is in fact true, leaving him open to arrest for charges in regards to conspiracy, complicity and cohesion to sexual abuse of others

Don't they have anything better to do in life besides bitch and moan?

[AllisonWalker]

Fared, it's very offensive to call someone retarded for their post and than have no factual evidence to support your claim that the "teachers vs priests" are infact, "retarded".

What Sally was saying earlier.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual-abus

Hofstra University researcher Charol Shakeshaft looked into the problem, and the first thing that came to her mind when Education Week reported on the study were the daily headlines about the Catholic Church.

“[T]hink the Catholic Church has a problem?” she said. “The physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml

[Fat1Fared]

Allsionyou are right, using that term was wrong and I will edit it out now, however I was not calling the person retarded, I said there use of statistic's was, because as I stated:

1=Just because 1 person does something wrong, does not make someone elses doing it valid

2=This is not to do with who has abused more children, but to do with the churches disgracful handling of this situration

3=Saying more teachers rape children than priests instantly means teachers are more likely to be rapest is what is called mixing cause and effect within statistic's. This is because if we follow this example, you will also find their are lot more teachers than priests and lot more child will be students than church goes, this means its a lot more to do with numbers than simply one group being more of rapest group than other (sorry for somewhat crude term's here.) There will also be lot more factors to these statistic's that are being willifully thrown about, but for point I making I feel going into it anymore would be reduntent, simple fact is, whoever said teachers are more likely to be a rapest than priests simply because more teachers are convicted, is a very poor use and conclusion of statistic's

Grim I have been looking at this from simple standard of morals, not law and please read the case, because you seem to think the Pope and catholic are being critisied for the priest's abusing children, they are not (well not here), they are being critisied for their handling of the situration, trying to cover up evidence of these acts and complete lack of remose over it. Which is to me and many others wrong

[AllisonWalker]

No it's not.
XD
If I'm a parent and I'm looking over where I'm going to send my kid to schoo, which do you think I'm going to choose? A Catholic School or a Public School? Which is safer?

Just because it doesn't suit your arguement doesn't mean it's invalid.

I'm not saying what the Catholic Church has been doing is alright or justified, only that the media blows things way out of proportion and has a vendetta against Catholics.

Hell, I'm not even Catholic and I know this.

[Underling]

Don't they have anything better to do in life besides bitch and moan?

AWW MAN

IF I EVER RAPE SOME KIDS I'M TOTALLY GONNA USE THAT ONE

"HEY MISTER POLICE MAN, DON'T YOU HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO DO IN LIFE THAN BITCH AND MOAN?"

"LOL HE'S RIGHT... YOU'RE FREE TO GO"

[Underling]

A Catholic School or a Public School? Which is safer?
Now you're claiming secular schools are more likely to abuse kids? Could you get any more bigoted?

[MrsSallyBakura]

Just to be clear, I don't believe that their actions should be justified, either.

Molestation and cover-ups are awful, terrible, horrible, and no one in the right mind should believe that they can be justified.

I only believe that people shouldn't point fingers at the wrong people. I have given multiple forms of evidence that the Pope is not responsible for the cover-ups. If you can make an argument against the evidence I brought to the topic, then please do so. If not, then I still stand by the notion that the cover-ups are not Pope Benedict's fault. I spent hours informing myself about the situation. Tell me if I'm being misinformed and give me some proof.

Fared, I want to make it clear that first of all, I never said that "this was all the media's fault." The media is fudging facts about a terrible issue in the Catholic Church.

And it's not just news media. Look what else is getting spread around:

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0sccvnFhb1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg

This image implies that the pope himself is a pedophile. And yes, it's a joke, and smart/informed people aren't going to take any of it seriously, but misinformed people are actually going to start believing that he is. Rumors spread and misinformation clouds the facts and suddenly no one knows anything that's happening anymore.
The sad thing about people is that, generally, they believe anything they hear as long as it doesn't go against their internal beliefs. If they either dislike or don't care about the Catholic Church, they'll believe just about anything said about it. That can be said about any group.

Also, I'm not saying that Islam should be attacked, because it most certainly shouldn't. I'm just saying that a double-standard exists, in that it's OK for opinion columnists to bash Catholics, but it's not OK for them to bash Muslims. It shouldn't be OK to bash any group for any reason.

EDIT:
Now you're claiming irreligious schools are more likely to abuse kids? Could you get any more bigoted?

No, I don't think she's saying that. They're also safer in a general sense - less likely to have a school shooting, more disciplined in general... but that's just speaking in American culture. I have no idea what British religious schools are like compared to British secular schools.

[grimfang999]

Grim I have been looking at this from simple standard of morals, not law and please read the case, because you seem to think the Pope and catholic are being critisied for the priest's abusing children, they are not (well not here), they are being critisied for their handling of the situration, trying to cover up evidence of these acts and complete lack of remose over it. Which is to me and many others wrong

im no longer talking about the case though. im asking what advantages are there to arresting the pope.

[Underling]

Also, I'm not saying that Islam should be attacked, because it most certainly shouldn't.
Err, there's plenty wrong with Islam you'd be justified in attacking it over.

[AllisonWalker]

Now you're claiming irreligious schools are more likely to abuse kids? Could you get any more bigoted?

How is that bigoted? I've gone through both public and Catholic school. Have you?

Your perspective is completely different since you've never been in American urban public schools.

[Underling]

How is that bigoted? I've gone through both public and Catholic school. Have you?

Your perspective is completely different since you've never been in American urban public schools.

Are you actually mentally ill?

Statistics generally need a larger sample of the population than just one single solitary dumbass.

That you've "gone through both public and Catholic school" is completely fucking irrelevant.

And yes, somebody assuming that their own experiences and opinions apply to the entire world is more or less the definition of a bigot.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Err, there's plenty wrong with Islam you'd be justified in attacking it over.

There's a difference between attacking and criticizing.

Criticizing is always welcome.

There's also a difference between the actions of an individual and the actions of an entire group.

[AllisonWalker]

Are you actually mentally ill?

Statistics generally need a larger sample of the population than just one single solitary dumbass.

That you've "gone through both public and Catholic school" is completely fucking irrelevant.

And yes, somebody assuming that their own experiences and opinions apply to the entire world is more or less the definition of a bigot.

There's also all the stastics on this, but I digress. You're incapable of debating issues without insulting people.

[Underling]

There's also all the stastics on this, but I digress. You're incapable of debating issues without insulting people.

Oh right yes statistics, let's see them then.

[AllisonWalker]

Oh right yes statistics, let's see them then.

I posted them a while back, go look for yourself.

[Underling]

I posted them a while back, go look for yourself.

Sure you did, sweetheart.

[AllisonWalker]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/opinion/main1933687.shtml

Right here. Reading over all the posts helps with these sort of things, you know.

[Underling]

Right here. Reading over all the posts helps with these sort of things, you know.

This doesn't compare the rates of abuse at Catholic/public schools at any point. I'm going to have to refer you back to my previous question regarding your mental health.

[AllisonWalker]

This doesn't compare the rates of abuse at Catholic/public schools at any point. I'm going to have to refer you back to my previous question regarding your mental health.

Then post something that says otherwise.

I'm concerned over yours.

[Underling]

Then post something that says otherwise.

I'm concerned over yours.

Really? Am I actually going to have to do this?

I am advocating a NULL HYPOTHESIS, i.e. that there is no relation between the variables of what kind of school you attend and how likely you are to be abused. The burden of proof lies with the person who has waltzed in and claimed there's some MAGICAL FUCKING REASON why these things should be related.

This is pretty basic stuff, Holmes.

[AllisonWalker]

Really? Am I actually going to have to do this?

I am advocating a NULL HYPOTHESIS, i.e. that there is no relation between the variables of what kind of school you attend and how likely you are to be abused. The burden of proof lies with the person who has waltzed in and claimed there's some MAGICAL FUCKING REASON why these things should be related.

This is pretty basic stuff, Holmes.

LOL really? Wow. That's just...wow.

That's like saying it doesn't matter what kind of grocery store you go to, all the produce will be the same. :thatface: Right.

[Underling]

LOL really? Wow. That's just...wow.

That's like saying it doesn't matter what kind of grocery store you go to, all the produce will be the same. :thatface: Right.

Except that that could be proven untrue.

You, on the other hand, don't seem capable of proving shit.

[AllisonWalker]

Except that that could be proven untrue.

You, on the other hand, don't seem capable of proving shit.

Because schools haven't already been proven to be inferior or superior to one another?

What do you think standardized testing is for?

[Underling]

Because schools haven't already been proven to be inferior or superior to one another?

What do you think standardized testing is for?

Comparing academic performance...?

...we're talking about child abuse?

What are y-...

I mean...



I don't think I can do this much longer...

[grimfang999]

allison, rule 14 :V

lol

[Underling]

allison, rule 14 :V

lol

I beg you're pardon?

[AllisonWalker]

Comparing academic performance...?

...we're talking about child abuse?

What are y-...

I mean...



I don't think I can do this much longer...

>_>
You just don't get anything people are saying here. Not at all. Location and what type of school you go to do have alot to do with how safe or dangerous the institution will be.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/03/local/me-teachers3
^American public schools doing what they do best.

[grimfang999]

sorry underling couldnt resist XD

[Underling]

>_>
You just don't get anything people are saying here. Not at all. Location and what type of school you go to do have alot to do with how safe or dangerous the institution will be.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/03/local/me-teachers3
^American public schools doing what they do best.

Oh, there are some shitty public schools?

Really?

I had no idea.

Well that clearly proves every point you've made.

And hey, I'm actually bleeding through my ears, didn't know sarcasm could do that.

[AllisonWalker]

So what are you getting at, then?

[Underling]

So what are you getting at, then?

At first I assumed we were still talking about child abuse but you seemed to have moved on to them having their lunch money stolen because they go to a shitty school.

And I'm just wondering why?

[AllisonWalker]

At first I assumed we were still talking about child abuse but you seemed to have moved on to them having their lunch money stolen because they go to a shitty school.

And I'm just wondering why?

Haha, that's not at all what I am saying. Sally even addressed that herself.

[Underling]

Haha, that's not at all what I am saying. Sally even addressed that herself.

... Maybe you could point that out earlier?



It was quite clear I was talking about abuse....

And you linked to an article talking about abuse...

The thread is about abuse...

I mean... really now...

[Underling]

KBody5RPo2o

[MrsSallyBakura]

One problem:

There's solid evidence, as far as I have researched, that he, personally, was not responsible for covering up anything involving the sex scandal.

Have this trial, go ahead. Throw him in jail, go ahead. But until I hear substantial evidence against what I researched, I cannot believe that the pope was involved in covering anything up.

And Underling? You're done screwing the rules. One more insult and you're getting a 2-day ban.

[grimfang999]

yeah, thats why i said to allison rule 14

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

One problem:

There's solid evidence, as far as I have researched, that he, personally, was not responsible for covering up anything involving the sex scandal.

Have this trial, go ahead. Throw him in jail, go ahead. But until I hear substantial evidence against what I researched, I cannot believe that the pope was involved in covering anything up.

And Underling? You're done screwing the rules. One more insult and you're getting a 2-day ban.

True, there is no evidence he covered it up.
But is known within the church, itself, that the abuse has been occurring.
Since it was known, why wasn't there consequences or punishments given to the priests that committed these crimes? Would it be possible for the acts have stopped or lessened if the pope made some sort of proclamation, setting a precedent for what happens when such crimes are discovered?

[MrsSallyBakura]

True, there is no evidence he covered it up.
But is known within the church, itself, that the abuse has been occurring.
Since it was known, why wasn't there consequences or punishments given to the priests that committed these crimes? Would it be possible for the acts have stopped or lessened if the pope made some sort of proclamation, setting a precedent for what happens when such crimes are discovered?

It would be impossible for the Vatican to be responsible for every priest who ever committed these crimes. The bishop of the diocese that the convicted priest belongs to should be held responsible for removing the priest from active ministry. However, obviously, this has not always happened the way it should, hence the huge deal about cover-ups.

So there ARE supposed to be punishments... it's just that for whatever reasons, some church leaders supposed that it would be a better idea to transfer the priest from parish to parish, diocese to diocese, so that nobody would have to get in trouble.

I don't know how the whole system works, and I don't fully understand why the cover-ups would exist in the first place (other than pride), so I apologize for not giving a complete answer, but it's the best that I can do from my knowledge. I am sure that there is someone, somewhere who is more knowledgeable about the subject than I.

[Fat1Fared]

Have this trial, go ahead. Throw him in jail, go ahead. But until I hear substantial evidence against what I researched, I cannot believe that the pope was involved in covering anything up.



=Sally, here you have shown the very problem with the catholic church in this situation, you sound like my cousin who is about 8, when she told off for stealing a cookie. I mean when I read this, I literally get an image of a small girl pursing her lips and hugging her legs as she sits in a corner indigently claiming, it was everyone else’s fault she did it.

=And this is why people are so outraged, I have done research, watched video's, read reports.....etc and in all that, I have seen one "small" half-hearted apology from your church about this, the rest is self-vindicating speeches about how the world is wrong, not us and this is not helping you at all, because not only does it mean you have this black mark tagged further to you, you also look completely remorseless about everything, well other than the fact you failed to cover it all up.

=And the simple fact remains, the catholic church is not the victim here, those children you tried to deny justice to, are and the quicker you accept this truth, the quicker you can begin to actually regain some dignity and show the world some remorse and allow everyone to move forward from this.
-Let me help you start by asking you two questions (which I want you to answer yourself, not here and forget all this when do it, just look at it as if it was a story about two normal people who never met and have no personality to you, because then you maybe able to answer them truthfully)

1=Do you believe child abuse is wrong?
2=Do you believe someone hiding evidence and helping those who have committed such crimes escape justice, is right?

=Answer them to yourself and then this will all become a lot clearer to you.

=Now if you and the rest of the Catholic Church wish’s to continue to bury your head in the sand, do so. If you wish to continue claiming your victim here, do so. If you wish to continue believing this all some evil conspiracy by some evil libel media mastermind, do so, just do not expect it to help your cause in anyway, because all it will do is add further evidence to the belief that catholic church is something which has grown ill and deprived and decided it would rather be seen to be good, than just be good.

-However in my humble and inadequate opinion, if your Church stands up and says we are in wrong here and have done wrong, but now we will accept the consequences of our actions and allow ourselves to atone for this, then you will find that world will be willing to forgive. To do anything else, will mean your church will continue to be a damned as it victimises itself with its own self-righteous foolishness and that will mean, not only has it failed those priests (which I believe it has) the world, those children (more than anyone) it will have also failed its own followers, AKA you, by betraying the very things it has tort you to believe in.

-Like I said, what happens next is the catholic churches choice but until it accepts it has acted wrongly and is not a victim, it will not be able to recover from this and it will not but us atheists who will end up damning it for that, it will be those who believed in it and were betrayed by it.

(oh and you want evidence, the evidence that these covers…etc happened is there in all reports, the fact the pope and several of his closest advisers names are in letters condoning it, prove they were involved enough to not be remissible (reason almost all laws have made law of complicity, its to stop people saying, I was not directly involved, therefore I am absolved of all responsibility, oh no your not, the others more directly involved will receive their tail in due course, but you are far from safe) but you want evidence which is stronger than anything else, look at the catholic churches reaction, was it one that said will believe there is nothing to hide, investigate us, no, it was one of we have diplomatic amenity, you cannot investigate us, that is the actions of people who really do not want things coming to light)

[grimfang999]

now fared, answer my question. What will be achieved by arresting the pope? I am aware you are going to say justice to the victims but if the priests who did it were arrested then isnt justice served. yes there is also a chance the pope was involved somehow, but I want you to tell me what advantages there are to the many

[JesusRocks]

I partially agree with Fared on this point:

However in my humble and inadequate opinion, if your Church stands up and says we are in wrong here and have done wrong, but now we will accept the consequences of our actions and allow ourselves to atone for this, then you will find that world will be willing to forgive. To do anything else, will mean your church will continue to be a damned as it victimises itself with its own self-righteous foolishness and that will mean, not only has it failed those priests (which I believe it has) the world, those children (more than anyone) it will have also failed its own followers, AKA you, by betraying the very things it has tort you to believe in.

If the Pope did have something to do with protecting those responsible for child abuse and whatnot, then there would be a lot to gain in the long run by accepting that responsibility. Even if it means being arrested on those charges.

If he didn't have anything to do with it, then so be it. However, I really don't think the RC Church should have anything to fear from a trial of the Pope - on the contrary, it would show the utmost humility IMO.

That said, I have not read into it whatsoever... I just think that if the Pope is responsible to some degree, there should be something more to it than a State apology to the victims. The world isn't going to be satisfied with that - other Christians might be willing to forgive from such an apology, but the rest of the world with its legal systems are not. Let it be decided whether the Pope is guilty or not of conspiracy in a trial.

However, Fared, remember that in Western legal systems the maxim is "innocent until proven guilty" - if this trial goes ahead and he is not proven guilty, then the presumption that we, as lawyers must make is that he is not guilty, and that we were mistaken in bringing him to trial.
It also means that if this country and other countries ultimately decide not to prosecute, and indeed until it does decide to prosecute, the Pope remains innocent.

[Fat1Fared]

I partially agree with Fared on this point:

If the Pope did have something to do with protecting those responsible for child abuse and whatnot, then there would be a lot to gain in the long run by accepting that responsibility. Even if it means being arrested on those charges.

If he didn't have anything to do with it, then so be it. However, I really don't think the RC Church should have anything to fear from a trial of the Pope - on the contrary, it would show the utmost humility IMO.

That said, I have not read into it whatsoever... I just think that if the Pope is responsible to some degree, there should be something more to it than a State apology to the victims. The world isn't going to be satisfied with that - other Christians might be willing to forgive from such an apology, but the rest of the world with its legal systems are not. Let it be decided whether the Pope is guilty or not of conspiracy in a trial.

However, Fared, remember that in Western legal systems the maxim is "innocent until proven guilty" - if this trial goes ahead and he is not proven guilty, then the presumption that we, as lawyers must make is that he is not guilty, and that we were mistaken in bringing him to trial.
It also means that if this country and other countries ultimately decide not to prosecute, and indeed until it does decide to prosecute, the Pope remains innocent.

-JR I agree with you here and you are indeed correct, I cannot deny I have cast my judgment already, but that is because in truth my judgment on whether Pope is guilty or not, does not matter (thus the inadquate and humble part) so I am afforded the luxary that is judgment without meticuloustion, but lack the power to truly act on my judgment, other than as small cell of the whole and what the whole truly wants and what truly matters is the wish to see this dealt with in a way which will allow some sort of justice to be heard for all parties involved.
-This is because believe or not, I am not happy about this and find it quite offensive that anyone can believe I (or any in my whole, but I cannot really speak for them) would be disreputable and cynical enough to be happy something like this happened, as serves as vindication for my own aims.

=(To to clear any misunderstanding, as though I think quite clear, sure others won't, I do not believe that:
1=Pope directly involved in these cover ups, but knew enough to be guilty of allowing them to happen and in some cases even approved the actions taken,
2=I also think the point, I failed to control my poeple because to many, is a poor defence at best, Leadership comes with responsability which you ether accept or do not take leadership,
3=This not a case against just the Pope, but all involved, with the Pope as center point

=Finally, I would also like to add, another advantage of this, will be that it sends a clear message to the world that no one should be above anyone in terms of accountability to the law of Man

[DarthWario]

Is it possible to force an abdication of a religious leader?

[mystra]

i've kind of given up on responding to this topic but i'm still reading it. in spirit of that i've found yet another side to it: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/13/massachusetts.priest.pope/index.html

[grimfang999]

i agree that it would be better for him to step down from papal authority. As I previously mentioned, the potency of which could occur in his arrest could be quite severe in several ways with few notable advantages.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Sally, here you have shown the very problem with the catholic church in this situation, you sound like my cousin who is about 8, when she told off for stealing a cookie. I mean when I read this, I literally get an image of a small girl pursing her lips and hugging her legs as she sits in a corner indigently claiming, it was everyone else’s fault she did it.

What?

I'm not saying that it's the media's fault that the church has been involved in cover-ups. All I am saying is that I still don't believe that the pope is to blame, from what I know.

And this is why people are so outraged, I have done research, watched video's, read reports.....etc and in all that, I have seen one "small" half-hearted apology from your church about this, the rest is self-vindicating speeches about how the world is wrong, not us and this is not helping you at all, because not only does it mean you have this black mark tagged further to you, you also look completely remorseless about everything, well other than the fact you failed to cover it all up.

Well hold on a second, first of all it's not my church, lol.

What was the apology about? Who gave it and why? What is the context?

And what is the church saying about the world being wrong?

On the first two pages, I did some research and found some sources that claimed that the pope wasn't responsible for those crimes against humanity. I have said this before - if you could please look over what I posted and find some research to dispute that, then that would be most excellent. If not, I still stand by my opinion that the pope wasn't involved.

And the simple fact remains, the catholic church is not the victim here, those children you tried to deny justice to, are and the quicker you accept this truth, the quicker you can begin to actually regain some dignity and show the world some remorse and allow everyone to move forward from this.
-Let me help you start by asking you two questions (which I want you to answer yourself, not here and forget all this when do it, just look at it as if it was a story about two normal people who never met and have no personality to you, because then you maybe able to answer them truthfully)

1=Do you believe child abuse is wrong?
2=Do you believe someone hiding evidence and helping those who have committed such crimes escape justice, is right?

=Answer them to yourself and then this will all become a lot clearer to you.

*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*

How many freaking times to I have to say it?

Well no, molesting children is never OK, it's just that the media makes it sound like Catholic priests are pretty much the only people who go about doing it. This is just untrue.

Just to be clear, I don't believe that their actions should be justified, either.

Molestation and cover-ups are awful, terrible, horrible, and no one in the right mind should believe that they can be justified.

All I am saying is that from what I know of the issue, the pope is not responsible for these crimes against humanity.

It helps you look better when you read my posts so that I don't have to keep repeating myself.

Oh but hey, I'll say it again, for good measure.

Molesting and raping children is wrong. Covering up those sex scandals is wrong. But according to the information that I gathered, the pope is not to blame for the wrongdoings of other church leaders.

Do you need me to say it again? :P

If the Pope did have something to do with protecting those responsible for child abuse and whatnot, then there would be a lot to gain in the long run by accepting that responsibility. Even if it means being arrested on those charges.

If he didn't have anything to do with it, then so be it. However, I really don't think the RC Church should have anything to fear from a trial of the Pope - on the contrary, it would show the utmost humility IMO.

That said, I have not read into it whatsoever... I just think that if the Pope is responsible to some degree, there should be something more to it than a State apology to the victims. The world isn't going to be satisfied with that - other Christians might be willing to forgive from such an apology, but the rest of the world with its legal systems are not. Let it be decided whether the Pope is guilty or not of conspiracy in a trial.

However, Fared, remember that in Western legal systems the maxim is "innocent until proven guilty" - if this trial goes ahead and he is not proven guilty, then the presumption that we, as lawyers must make is that he is not guilty, and that we were mistaken in bringing him to trial.
It also means that if this country and other countries ultimately decide not to prosecute, and indeed until it does decide to prosecute, the Pope remains innocent.

Yes, JR. Thank you for your post. I absolutely agree.

I don't think that the church has anything to fear, either. I realized this yesterday after going through all the trouble of researching the topic.

[Turtlicious]

the pope covered it up

[AnAliasUnknown]

I partially agree with Fared on this point:



If the Pope did have something to do with protecting those responsible for child abuse and whatnot, then there would be a lot to gain in the long run by accepting that responsibility. Even if it means being arrested on those charges.

If he didn't have anything to do with it, then so be it. However, I really don't think the RC Church should have anything to fear from a trial of the Pope - on the contrary, it would show the utmost humility IMO.

That said, I have not read into it whatsoever... I just think that if the Pope is responsible to some degree, there should be something more to it than a State apology to the victims. The world isn't going to be satisfied with that - other Christians might be willing to forgive from such an apology, but the rest of the world with its legal systems are not. Let it be decided whether the Pope is guilty or not of conspiracy in a trial.

However, Fared, remember that in Western legal systems the maxim is "innocent until proven guilty" - if this trial goes ahead and he is not proven guilty, then the presumption that we, as lawyers must make is that he is not guilty, and that we were mistaken in bringing him to trial.
It also means that if this country and other countries ultimately decide not to prosecute, and indeed until it does decide to prosecute, the Pope remains innocent.

I think that probably sums up all that I would be able to say on this matter. Granted, I'm not familiar with the political workings of the Church, but if we were to treat this as a cover-up without the fancy strings attached, then it should be a matter of "Look into it, have a trial, but if he's innocent then okay."

[grimfang999]

though I would wish that people started to look at what may happen if he were areested rather than why he should be -_-

[Noah Kaiba]

Arresting the pope? Yeah, I'm sure that'll go over well. :smiley6:

[JesusRocks]

though I would wish that people started to look at what may happen if he were areested rather than why he should be -_-

- Tonnes of Catholics would be peeved about it
- It might get bigger news coverage than Michael Jackson's trials
- The IRA would have something to say about it ... and by "say" I mean "blow up" and by "something" I mean "some cars"
- The smug atheists would fold their arms and feel pleased with themselves in a smug way (not implying that all atheists are smug - just the smug ones)
- Richard Dawkins will write a book on law
- Christopher Hitchens will love it

If the Pope were, say, convicted and jailed... the RC Church would have some temporary administrative restructuring to do >_>
Some might consider Pope Benedict's abdication necessary

Some people will undoubtedly misunderstand it completely and start rioting and looting (any excuse really...)

Some Protestant churches will undoubtedly fold their arms, look just a smug as the smug atheists and have "I told you so" looks on their faces.

It will be a Trope-changer. The trope "Christianity is Catholic" will be largely replaced in Hollywood and in the minds of authors by the trope "All Christians are Paedophiles".

That's about all I can think of so far :V

[grimfang999]

thank you Jesusrocks. You have come to the same conclusions ive been getting at all along and have been trying to see fared to see. Now, think of the advantages aside from the smug Athiests. As can be seen, more harm will come than good. Thus, the question is, should he be arrested or be allowed free for the good of the many? It would be prefereable if he were to be convinced to willingly step down from papalship so all that can be avoided and we can get a pope with more modern conceptions to change their, "administrative structure" as you called it. That way most of the problems shall be avoided.


also, you missed that the catholics may start to develop a hate for Britain and it could become widespread, which will not deem well for us. Plus, it would upset the British catholics even more than others since this prevented the rare visit of the pope to England and future visits on top of whatever popes come next. This will contribute to the rioting and religious unhappiness, which may end up with more anarchic extremists and may actually sink the church lower.


As far as I can see, no good will comes out of it for anyone

[JesusRocks]

thank you Jesusrocks. You have come to the same conclusions ive been getting at all along and have been trying to see fared to see. Now, think of the advantages aside from the smug Athiests. As can be seen, more harm will come than good. Thus, the question is, should he be arrested or be allowed free for the good of the many? It would be prefereable if he were to be convinced to willingly step down from papalship so all that can be avoided and we can get a pope with more modern conceptions to change their, "administrative structure" as you called it. That way most of the problems shall be avoided.


also, you missed that the catholics may start to develop a hate for Britain and it could become widespread, which will not deem well for us. Plus, it would upset the British catholics even more than others since this prevented the rare visit of the pope to England and future visits on top of whatever popes come next. This will contribute to the rioting and religious unhappiness, which may end up with more anarchic extremists and may actually sink the church lower.


As far as I can see, no good will comes out of it for anyone

Actually that was implied in the dig at the IRA
Also, it depends on your perspective, but I initially meant that having smug atheists getting more smug would be a bad thing...

Although I don't see it going down such a destructive path as you seem to think it will...

[grimfang999]

well i saew it as a bad thing as well, but for them its good.

I know it may not be as terrable, but its best to think of the worst case scenarios, so you are prepared for any case. Things will almost definately happen which you mentioned, even if it is considerably on a small scale at best, but it will still do more harm than good as far as the situation goes. Fared did mention earlier that Christians rioting would show them up as not being as peace-loving as they make themselves out to be, so it will likely only damage and humiliate the church more, and while a little humiliation is good, the arresting of the pope and the resulting effects go too far

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

America isn't the most popular country, especially during the Bush years.

I severely doubt that Britain's approval rating will take that big of a hit, if the pope is arrested there.

[AllisonWalker]

America isn't the most popular country, especially during the Bush years.

I severely doubt that Britain's approval rating will take that big of a hit, if the pope is arrested there.

It's not popularity that matters, but power.
And we have alot of power, there's no denying that.
But I don't think Catholicism and the US Government will be that affected by each other.

[grimfang999]

The hit will be big enough. We do not really want to have grudges, and seeing as several countries in Europe are still in majority Catholic, I dont think we want to have the majority of our closest neighbours against us, even if it is just the publics.

Its a risk arresting the pope, and a stupid risk at that due to the immense potency it has to the fact that its damage will be quite large and can blow out of proportion

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

It's not popularity that matters, but power.
And we have alot of power, there's no denying that.
But I don't think Catholicism and the US Government will be that affected by each other.

Britain has the same, if not more, power than the US.

I say it's going to be a moot point.

the pope travels to England, goes through with the trial, a verdict will be made, and that will be the end of matters.

I don't think this will be that big of a stir.

[grimfang999]

Britain has the same, if not more, power than the US.

I say it's going to be a moot point.

the pope travels to England, goes through with the trial, a verdict will be made, and that will be the end of matters.

I don't think this will be that big of a stir.

its not the trial im concerned about. As soon as he is arrested protests and riots will occur. people do not wait when they want to make a point. Even if the verdict is innocent the damage is still done, and if it is guilty more chaos will ensue

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

There are always a few crazies that pop up when big news occurs, but they tend to go away almost immediately. I don't think they're going to be a problem.

If I remember right, a couple of people tried SHOOTING Pope John Paul II, when he was alive. There wasn't any riots over those situations. They guys that tried it were caught and imprisoned and the pope got a bullet-proof vehicle to ride in for safety.

[AllisonWalker]

Britain has the same, if not more, power than the US.



Ha, no it doesn't. But that would bring us off-topic.

I agree with Grim. Arresting the Pope would solve nothing.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Did you guys know that there was only one other point in history where the pope was arrested?

It was during the middle ages. Boniface was his name.

He was put under house arrest in France. Whoopee.

If I remember right, a couple of people tried SHOOTING Pope John Paul II, when he was alive. There wasn't any riots over those situations. They guys that tried it were caught and imprisoned and the pope got a bullet-proof vehicle to ride in for safety.

Yes, that is basically what happened. It happened in 1981.

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

Did you guys know that there was only one other point in history where the pope was arrested?

It was during the middle ages. Boniface was his name.

He was put under house arrest in France. Whoopee.


were there riots when Boniface was arrested and public outrage from the Catholics at that time?

[MrsSallyBakura]

were there riots when Boniface was arrested and public outrage from the Catholics at that time?

No idea.

I'll have to ask the history buff nerd I heard about the arrest from.

Although you would think that it would be a big point in history if there were a riot. You mostly just hear about the Crusades and the Inquisition.

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

Looking up the history on that pope it looks like, mostly, pissy whining bitch-fighting between Pope Boniface VIII and the French King Philip IV.
http://www.culturalcatholic.com/PopeBonifaceVIII.htm
I doubt there were riots, then, as the whole affair looks very much like a school-yard scuffle. But it was the middle ages so anything could have happened.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Fearing a schism if Pope Celestine V's supporters attempted to return him to the papacy, Pope Boniface VIII ordered Pope Celestine V's arrest; and when Pope Celestine V attempted to flee, he was imprisoned at the Fortress of Fumone in Italy where he died on May 19, 1296. Rumor spread that Pope Boniface VIII ordered Pope Celestine V's assassination.

Oh the Middle Ages...

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

Oh the Middle Ages...

nothing worse than pope on pope crime,

But seriously, the middle ages aren't really anything to compare with today's standards.

Anything, and I mean ANYTHING would set off a scandal.

[Fat1Fared]

Ok, I was going to make one other comment, but sally has done/said something to/about me, which I feel, needs dealing with more offically here, so until that is dealt with, I do not feel it is approiate for me to make any further comments on this thread

[grimfang999]

really with this thing about the pope who got arrested in the middle ages, i am pretty sure there were riots, not as big however and subdued quickly or never written down. There are two reasons i can think of off the top of my head, first is that people were better behaved, two is that serfdom made them unimportant to the histories.

[darkarcher]

really with this thing about the pope who got arrested in the middle ages, i am pretty sure there were riots, not as big however and subdued quickly or never written down. There are two reasons i can think of off the top of my head, first is that people were better behaved, two is that serfdom made them unimportant to the histories.

There was not a great propagation of news stories at the time. Pretty much the only people informed about the more particular current events were the lords.

[maisetofan]

I know that I'll probably sound like I'm overreacting and biased due to the fact that she's talking about my own religion (and heck, I probably am biased), but I'm still pretty certain that if she had said this crap about Islam (for example), she'd be so much more hated and considered more intolerable.

.

Very true
Catholicism has been downed for years i mean christianity in general is not popular and it does annoy me how it seems to be okay to openly disrespect it but if someone were to say something negative about the islam faith, they would be hated for their view and most likely be told they are "narrow minded"

i do not advocate the catholic church, i do not blame the pope either, how can you blame one man in rome for something he did not do?
why should he be arrested?

[JesusRocks]

Very true
Catholicism has been downed for years i mean christianity in general is not popular and it does annoy me how it seems to be okay to openly disrespect it but if someone were to say something negative about the islam faith, they would be hated for their view and most likely be told they are "narrow minded"

i do not advocate the catholic church, i do not blame the pope either, how can you blame one man in rome for something he did not do?
why should he be arrested?

inb4underling insults you:

It's about conspiracy, which is still a crime - knowingly protecting those who are suspected of a crime

It's not about the child abuse itself - it's about the Pope's supposed knowing protection of child abusers and his liability thereof

[maisetofan]

inb4underling insults you:

It's about conspiracy, which is still a crime - knowingly protecting those who are suspected of a crime

It's not about the child abuse itself - it's about the Pope's supposed knowing protection of child abusers and his liability thereof

well thanks for the insult, always appreciated :thatface:

yes there are many people who believe the pope knew what was going on and helped cover it up.

i know that is a crime, as is covering up a murder is also a crime
but i just do not see how the catholics who do have a lot of power financially round the world are going to allow the pope to be arrested, surely there will be some sort of uproar? if not already?

[mystra]

Check out the part about the letter (about halfway down the page)
Unhappy birthday for pope as Catholic crisis widens (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041601699.html)

[MrsSallyBakura]

"In what other institution on this planet does a top official praise a colleague for hiding a criminal from the police?" she asked in a statement.

You never know.

Not that it's an excuse to hide criminals, but to say that this kind of stuff only exists in the Catholic Church is a stretch.

[TitanAura]

It's only going to get worse and I'm certain more than a few Catholic higher ups are going to be lynched before this is through. But as I said before, fire will solve everything.

[grimfang999]

Check out the part about the letter (about halfway down the page)
Unhappy birthday for pope as Catholic crisis widens (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041601699.html)

sounds tome its more to do with the confessing of sins which Catholics do. when they said he was a modal for all other priests they did not mean all priests should molest, but they should be admitting their wrongs.

the reason he did not expose that priest therefore is because he felt that the priest felt completely repentant from his sin and therefore not needed to be punished further in law. Here, it seems its more likely the case of spiritual/mental and lawful judgement and approach.


Just what I saw of it from one perspective and likely the intended means, so it may not be seen as endorsing abuse but encouraging forgiveness, but it still does not mean the priest is above the law

[mystra]

sounds tome its more to do with the confessing of sins which Catholics do. when they said he was a modal for all other priests they did not mean all priests should molest, but they should be admitting their wrongs.

the reason he did not expose that priest therefore is because he felt that the priest felt completely repentant from his sin and therefore not needed to be punished further in law. Here, it seems its more likely the case of spiritual/mental and lawful judgement and approach.


Just what I saw of it from one perspective and likely the intended means, so it may not be seen as endorsing abuse but encouraging forgiveness, but it still does not mean the priest is above the law

You seem to've missed the whole point of the letter. It was applauding the cover up and saying other priests should do the same if confronted with the same issue.