Bye Bye Panzer Paul!

[Gabriel Syme]

Yes I heard this today also - it was quite a shock, as others have stated, it is not common for Popes to resign (though it has happened before).

In his official speech, Benedict has stated it is because he feels that his advancing years mean he is not up to the task anymore. He is now 85 and is a very frail man. He has been in office since 2005 and at the time was one of the oldest Popes ever to be elected.

While his health is probably pretty good, compared to the average 85 year old, it has dimished to the extent that he can no longer fulfill his demanding and busy role adequately.

For some time (years) he has been too weak to be able to walk the length of St Peters Basillica, meaning he had to be brought in on a wheeled platform, to conserve his strength.

Also, long speeches - which Popes often give - have become very difficult for him. I have heard in speak twice in person, (once in the UK, one in Rome), and both times it was obvious that the speeches were a real effort for him. He would cough repeatedly, seemingly struggling with a dry throat, and would require pauses to rest and water to be brought to drink. (The speech in Rome was so long because he delivered it in about 7 different languages).

Given his age when he was elected, I dont really think anyone expected him to last as long as this!

It is my sincere wish that his health is good enough to give him at least some remaining happy time to enjoy the company of his loved ones and his favourite things - mozart, cats, piano and reading.

He has been treated terrible by the western media, who transformed him into some kind of ogre figure, to facilitate any number of cheap n' easy stories.

In particular, it was wrong of them to blame him for the abuse scandals in cathoic institutions.

The guilty parties there were the certain local Bishops, who - at the time - had the supreme authority in their own diocese when dealing with allegations of crime. This is how they were able to cover things up, because it didnt go any further than them.

With over 5,000 Catholic Bishops in the world, it is not realistic to expect the Pope can micro-manage every last one of them, or be kept appraised of their affairs.

It was Pope Benedict who changed this policy of local authority, meaning that allegations of crime had to be reported to the Vatican, for dealing with centrally.

This is a much better system as it (i) ensures consistency, (ii) is impartial because the Vatican will not know the accused priest personally, whilst he may well be friendly with his local Bishop and (iii) it removes any local influence which may adversely affect the case.

Of course, his demonisation in the media was because he speaks out against abortion, against homosexuality, against promicuous sex etc etc - against people just "doing what they want" with no sense of responsibility, essentially.

Catholic arguments on all of these are bullet and bomb proof, which is why the media and Church enemies have to resort to lies and personal attacks.

On behalf of the worlds catholics - thank you for everything Pope Benedict. You have been an inspiration to us and a very fine Pope indeed. May you enjoy a peaceful retirement and may God bless you.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

I think it's pathetic to condemn euthanasia and at the same time resign as pope. What a pussy. He should suffer in his role till death, the lying asshole.

[TaraJo]

I just read an article on it. I wonder how much say he's going to have in naming his own replacement? Since the last time a pope resigned was almost 600 years ago, it's hard to guage. If he does get to dominate the electoral process, they'll just put in place another hard-liner like him. If they realize the image problems the Catholic church has and they really want to try to 'rebrand' Catholicism, they may go with someone from a more diverse background. Someone from South America or Africa would be quite fitting. Me, I'm just hoping they nominate someone with less of a hard-line stance on social issues like same sex marriage, birth control or abortion. Sure, the Catholics are still going to be against those things, but the difference between a hard-line stance and a softer stance is that with a softer stance, you won't spread misinformation like "Condoms cause AIDS."

[Anymouse]

In particular, it was wrong of them to blame him for the abuse scandals in cathoic institutions.

The guilty parties there were the certain local Bishops, who - at the time - had the supreme authority in their own diocese when dealing with allegations of crime. This is how they were able to cover things up, because it didnt go any further than them.

So by that logic, it was wrong of the government and investors to blame the failure of Enron on Kenneth Lay (he was CEO). It was wrong to blame the Gulf oil spill on Tony Haywood (the CEO of BP). It is wrong to blame the Department of Defense for excessive behaviour on the part of soldiers in the chain-of-command for improper supervision or indoctrination. No. The guy on top is ultimately responsible.

All those bishops, all that time, and the Holy See never heard about any of it. Such a world-spanning cover up by individual bishops.

My understanding was that bishops do not have supreme authority in everything in their diocese; that they are responsible to the chain-of-command, on top of which sits the Pope.

Conspiracies work because they have few participants; the more people involved in a conspiracy, the greater the chance of its discovery. The number of priests and bishops involved (not to mention the victims) seem to make the odds vanishingly small that the Vatican knew nothing.

With over 5,000 Catholic Bishops in the world, it is not realistic to expect the Pope can micro-manage every last one of them, or be kept appraised of their affairs.

And yet as Cardinal Ratzinger, he was in charge of investigating such paedophilic priests. As you point out, he could not micormanage them. That was not his job. His job as both a Cardinal and a Pope was to supervise them. It is a failure of supervision. The guy on top is ultimately responsible for what his subordinates do. (The alternative here is since God is above the Pope in the hierarchy of the Church, then God is responsible.)

It was Pope Benedict who changed this policy of local authority, meaning that allegations of crime had to be reported to the Vatican, for dealing with centrally.

This is a much better system as it (i) ensures consistency, (ii) is impartial because the Vatican will not know the accused priest personally, whilst he may well be friendly with his local Bishop and (iii) it removes any local influence which may adversely affect the case.

Did you not just claim that a zillion bishops cannot be micromanaged? The creation of such a clearinghouse office at the Holy See ensures that abuse claims will never see the light of day (such an office would be swamped, even if only a tiny percentage of Catholics make such claims). It would be buried on a scale that humbles the Veterans Administration's time to process claims. A billion Catholics served by one office.

How does centralisation achieve such consistency? Decentralised management works much better, with a supervisor to ensure consistency. (Centralised control did not work for the Soviet Union for example, nor for North Korea. Centralised control works very well at creating personality cults though.)

Of course, his demonisation in the media was because he speaks out against abortion, against homosexuality, against promicuous sex etc etc - against people just "doing what they want" with no sense of responsibility, essentially.

There is a term for doing what you want, provided it does not interfere with another person's right to do the same. That term is "liberty," a concept that all religious organisations find anathema.

The rest is a judgement call. By a guy who has no sex, yet feels qualified to stand in judgement of those who do, no less.

Homosexuality is not a position of "acting irresponsibly." Promiscuity is "he is getting more sex than me." The alternative to the ethical dilemma abortion poses is no abortion and the resultant destruction of women at the hands of quacks, which is a larger ethical dilemma.

Or perhaps you approve of the recent death of an Indian woman at the hands of a "morally-correct" Catholic hospital in Ireland, or the death of twin foetuses in Colorado when a Catholic hospital could have saved them by Caesarian section but allowed them to die, and then argued in a lawsuit that Colorado law did not recognise them as persons?

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/02/04/ca...h-lawsuit/

In other words, they are persons unless we are getting sued.

Catholic arguments on all of these are bullet and bomb proof, which is why the media and Church enemies have to resort to lies and personal attacks.

They are neither bullet nor bomb proof (except when Christians are shooting abortion doctors or blowing up abortion clinics). Everything science has discovered about homosexuality is that it occurs across many species throughout nature; everything science has discovered about -anything- is not based on a Bronze Age book, though Christians are quite happy to use science and technology developed by men and women and plagiarise it on behalf of their god.

Perhaps next time you need a surgical procedure you would prefer that your physician consult nothing by Greek texts from the time on medicine? Or perhaps have a priest lay on hands for healing (I believe that is derived from the New Testament, you know, the Word of God)? If the answer to that is no, then why would you want anyone else to consult similarly-aged texts to tell you how to behave in a moral manner?

And where did you get the morals to determine one book (the Bible, whichever revised version, as a Catholic I presume you use the NAB) is moral and another holy book (the Qu'ran, or the Vedas, or the King James version of the Bible) are not? How can one be an atheist about every god ever proposed, other than one (or three, depending on how you count) without using your Bible to determine that?

On the other hand, a Fundamentalist Christian tried to turn his dog over to be euthanised for it being gay.
http://www.examiner.com/article/gay-dog-...-be-killed

On behalf of the worlds catholics - thank you for everything Pope Benedict. You have been an inspiration to us and a very fine Pope indeed. May you enjoy a peaceful retirement and may God bless you.

On behalf of the world's atheists, I hope the Catholic Church picks someone who actually cares about his followers, you know, someone who does not condemn birth control because he falsely believes there is unlimited space on the planet, that rationalises stories in Genesis because they are so patently false (and have absolutely nothing in them that could not have been made up by Bronze Age nomads), and can operate two stellar observatories for the purpose of advancing knowledge (one at the Vatican, one in Phoenix) rather than "the faith."

[Minimalist]

In particular, it was wrong of them to blame him for the abuse scandals in cathoic institutions.

Get your head out of your ass. He was in it up to the hilt.

The problem they'll have is that so many of them were guilty of covering up this scandal that it will be tough to find one whose dick is clean.

Guess I'll have to retire this.....

[img][/img]

Auf Wiedersehn, Herr Von Popenfuhrer. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Ryantology]

Auf wiedersehen, Herr von Popenführer.

[Gooders1002]

Goodbye Pope Palpatine

Or is he going to live on the Death Star from now on?

[Napoléon]

Gabriel Syme, more and more you just sound like a deluded catholic fanboy.

[Cyberman]

In particular, it was wrong of them to blame him for the abuse scandals in cathoic institutions.

Get your head out of your ass. He was in it up to the hilt.

Had this come from anyone else, I'd have made some comment about the unfortunate choice of phrasing. As it is, I know for a fact it was anything but chosen unfortunately.

[Minimalist]

Moi?