Pope Benedict XVI to Resign in March (true)

[Gabriel Syme]

Lest we forget:
http://www.protest-the-pope.org.uk/mr-ra...rap-sheet/

If I asked you an honest question, would you give an honest answer?

How much effort did you put into investigating the authenticity of these claims in this "rap sheet"?

I will deal with it here:

Joseph Ratzinger, a.k.a. “The Pope” is charged with the following crimes:
1.Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of AIDS

Nonsense. Public Health Expert Dr Edward Green, who has held posts at various universities, including Harvard, stated that the empirical evidence re HIV transmission supported the Catholic position.

Id rather listen to a public health expert, (who is not a Catholic), than a "protest the pope" website, If I wanted the unbiased truth.

And women can control their fertility, with the same success as using condoms, entirely naturally.

I have posted substantiation of both these points in posts elsewhere on the forum today.

So, Point number 1 is anti-scientific rubbish (as it denies what university level experts tell us, based on empirical evidence).

2.Promoting segregated education

So its alright for families to choose:

- public (£££) or state schools
- gender exclusive or mixed schools
- boarding or day schools

All of which segregate pupils, on some grounds or other - gender, wealth etc - but its somehow NOT Ok for families to choose a Catholic school, because they segregates?

Point 2 is ridiculous 'clutching at straws'.

3.Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women

An exceptionally vague statement.

Its true that Catholicism doesn't advocate abortion simply because a woman doesn't want to take responsibility for her own choice to have sex.

Pregnancy is not inherently harmful to women - it is a major and normal function of their bodies.

But it is not true that Catholicism condemns women to death, if the pregnancy somehow does wrong.

Morality is about intent. If medical action is taken to save a woman's life, but which results in the unintended death of the unborn child, that is not the same as a deliberate abortion.

This is know as the principle of "double effect" (thanks to St Thomas Aquinas).

Another example of this would be if you killed someone in self defence. Morally, that is clearly a world apart from committing a deliberate murder.

Note that any such dangerous pregnancy is exceptionally rare and that abortion kills women, but it is usually unreported. Here is one which was reported:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z2KdJ1yVfW

Point 3 is a deliberate distortion of Catholic policy.

4.Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people

By "equal rights" they mean "view and treat entirely the same, with no difference" - as per the current gay marriage furore.

But (eg) homosexual couples are simply not "the same" as heterosexual couples. There are all manner of differences - demonstrably.

Asking a Catholic to view a gay relationship as being the same as a heterosexual marriage is like asking them to call a dog a horse.

But a dog is not a horse, so we wont do it. Note that articulating that a dog is not a horse implies no inherent slight upon the dog (unless the dog feels inadequate to start with, for its own reasons, and would really prefer to be called a horse).

Point 4 is a nonsense

5.Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.

It is true that some Catholic diocesan Bishops failed, decades ago, to deal properly with cases of abuse, which was a disgrace. They managed this as they had the final authority to act in their own areas.

But Pope Benedict has been a great reformer in this regard. He stripped the local Bishops of their authority to deal with any future allegations of crime - now they are dealt with by the CDF, to ensure consistency and proper treatment.

He was also meeting victims and making public apologies on behalf of the Church for years before the press took an interest in any of this.

He took the enormous baggage of the sexual abuse crisis by the handle, opened it, and began unpacking. Because of his courageous leadership on this front, much progress has been made in healing wounds that have lasted decades, and the Catholic Church now is an institution with the strongest protections for children.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/...-statement

Note also that rates of abuse in the Catholic Church are no higher than in secular society or other religions - indeed they are often lower. However, the media concentrate exclusively on Catholic cases, to give a false impression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cover...a_coverage

Point 5 is a lie.

6.Rehabilitating the holocaust denier bishop Richard Williamson and the appeaser of Hitler, the war-time Pope, Pius XII.

Richard Williamson is not, and has never been, a Catholic Bishop.

He has never said the holocaust did not take place, but he has questioned the number of people killed (I do not defend his view, only clarify it).

He was part of a group excommunicated from the Catholic Church (SSPX). Benedicts action removed the excommunication, which was first necessary before the group could be reconciled with the Church.

The full reconciliation still has not taken place (mainly its just been lots of arguing etc) but Willianson has since been expelled by the SSPX (mainly as he is a bit of a nutter). Note that Williamson himself was against reconciliation with the Vatican (again, nutter).

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories...204487.htm

As for Pope Pius XII, its is now widely recognised that the idea of "Hitlers Pope" is a nonsense.

Its one of the myths people who hate the Church make up, and others swallow.

Modern Jewish historians estimate that Pope Piux XII saved 860,000 jews from the Nazis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/nyregi...r/XhA5Q6dw

Even the Guardian is now starting to have to admit it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb...-holocaust

A new book coming out will definitively review the record of Piux XII in this regard:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commenta...t-to-rest/

Point 6 is two lies

So - with a little googling, it was very easy to debunk all of that rubbish! (and very enjoyable too lol).

None of the allegations had the slightest substance, it was a lot of desperate bollocks made up by people to justify their hate. People who start with their conclusion, and then invent facts to support it.

Its disappointing to see these lies lapped up so eagerly, with no checks done etc. So much for 'critical thinking'.

The Catholic Church is not perfect, and - being an ancient organisation - has certainly made a few mistakes in its time, but it is not the monstrous organisation its opponents make it out to be.

If it were, I would take nothing to do with it!

Well - I am off to bed!
Good to talk to you again
Cheers
GS

[Cyberman]

My honest answer, in response to your honest question, is I researched every item on that rap sheet thoroughly. Does that surprise you? The reason I ask is that you seemed to feel the need to begin your rebuttal by belittling me and my integrity, in a manner which could be described as poisoning the well, instead of simply responding to each of the charges and leaving me out of the equation. All I did was provide the information. Do you also shoot postmen?

[Brian37]

Lest we forget:
http://www.protest-the-pope.org.uk/mr-ra...rap-sheet/

If I asked you an honest question, would you give an honest answer?

How much effort did you put into investigating the authenticity of these claims in this "rap sheet"?

I will deal with it here:

Joseph Ratzinger, a.k.a. “The Pope” is charged with the following crimes:
1.Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of AIDS

Nonsense. Public Health Expert Dr Edward Green, who has held posts at various universities, including Harvard, stated that the empirical evidence re HIV transmission supported the Catholic position.

Id rather listen to a public health expert, (who is not a Catholic), than a "protest the pope" website, If I wanted the unbiased truth.

And women can control their fertility, with the same success as using condoms, entirely naturally.

I have posted substantiation of both these points in posts elsewhere on the forum today.

So, Point number 1 is anti-scientific rubbish (as it denies what university level experts tell us, based on empirical evidence).

2.Promoting segregated education

So its alright for families to choose:

- public (£££) or state schools
- gender exclusive or mixed schools
- boarding or day schools

All of which segregate pupils, on some grounds or other - gender, wealth etc - but its somehow NOT Ok for families to choose a Catholic school, because they segregates?

Point 2 is ridiculous 'clutching at straws'.

3.Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women

An exceptionally vague statement.

Its true that Catholicism doesn't advocate abortion simply because a woman doesn't want to take responsibility for her own choice to have sex.

Pregnancy is not inherently harmful to women - it is a major and normal function of their bodies.

But it is not true that Catholicism condemns women to death, if the pregnancy somehow does wrong.

Morality is about intent. If medical action is taken to save a woman's life, but which results in the unintended death of the unborn child, that is not the same as a deliberate abortion.

This is know as the principle of "double effect" (thanks to St Thomas Aquinas).

Another example of this would be if you killed someone in self defence. Morally, that is clearly a world apart from committing a deliberate murder.

Note that any such dangerous pregnancy is exceptionally rare and that abortion kills women, but it is usually unreported. Here is one which was reported:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z2KdJ1yVfW

Point 3 is a deliberate distortion of Catholic policy.

4.Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people

By "equal rights" they mean "view and treat entirely the same, with no difference" - as per the current gay marriage furore.

But (eg) homosexual couples are simply not "the same" as heterosexual couples. There are all manner of differences - demonstrably.

Asking a Catholic to view a gay relationship as being the same as a heterosexual marriage is like asking them to call a dog a horse.

But a dog is not a horse, so we wont do it. Note that articulating that a dog is not a horse implies no inherent slight upon the dog (unless the dog feels inadequate to start with, for its own reasons, and would really prefer to be called a horse).

Point 4 is a nonsense

5.Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.

It is true that some Catholic diocesan Bishops failed, decades ago, to deal properly with cases of abuse, which was a disgrace. They managed this as they had the final authority to act in their own areas.

But Pope Benedict has been a great reformer in this regard. He stripped the local Bishops of their authority to deal with any future allegations of crime - now they are dealt with by the CDF, to ensure consistency and proper treatment.

He was also meeting victims and making public apologies on behalf of the Church for years before the press took an interest in any of this.

He took the enormous baggage of the sexual abuse crisis by the handle, opened it, and began unpacking. Because of his courageous leadership on this front, much progress has been made in healing wounds that have lasted decades, and the Catholic Church now is an institution with the strongest protections for children.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/...-statement

Note also that rates of abuse in the Catholic Church are no higher than in secular society or other religions - indeed they are often lower. However, the media concentrate exclusively on Catholic cases, to give a false impression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cover...a_coverage

Point 5 is a lie.

6.Rehabilitating the holocaust denier bishop Richard Williamson and the appeaser of Hitler, the war-time Pope, Pius XII.

Richard Williamson is not, and has never been, a Catholic Bishop.

He has never said the holocaust did not take place, but he has questioned the number of people killed (I do not defend his view, only clarify it).

He was part of a group excommunicated from the Catholic Church (SSPX). Benedicts action removed the excommunication, which was first necessary before the group could be reconciled with the Church.

The full reconciliation still has not taken place (mainly its just been lots of arguing etc) but Willianson has since been expelled by the SSPX (mainly as he is a bit of a nutter). Note that Williamson himself was against reconciliation with the Vatican (again, nutter).

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories...204487.htm

As for Pope Pius XII, its is now widely recognised that the idea of "Hitlers Pope" is a nonsense.

Its one of the myths people who hate the Church make up, and others swallow.

Modern Jewish historians estimate that Pope Piux XII saved 860,000 jews from the Nazis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/nyregi...r/XhA5Q6dw

Even the Guardian is now starting to have to admit it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb...-holocaust

A new book coming out will definitively review the record of Piux XII in this regard:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commenta...t-to-rest/

Point 6 is two lies

So - with a little googling, it was very easy to debunk all of that rubbish! (and very enjoyable too lol).

None of the allegations had the slightest substance, it was a lot of desperate bollocks made up by people to justify their hate. People who start with their conclusion, and then invent facts to support it.

Its disappointing to see these lies lapped up so eagerly, with no checks done etc. So much for 'critical thinking'.

The Catholic Church is not perfect, and - being an ancient organisation - has certainly made a few mistakes in its time, but it is not the monstrous organisation its opponents make it out to be.

If it were, I would take nothing to do with it!

Well - I am off to bed!
Good to talk to you again
Cheers
GS

Yes, it is hate, for a person who hides behind the false cloak of virtue, based on a superstition, and then KNEW what was going on and simply shuffled those priests around instead of reporting them to law enforcement. You'd rather protect the priests than the victims?

Oh and before you go falsely claiming hate. I was formerly Catholic, and many people here were once some sort of believer. Not all of us here were always atheists.

YOU are protecting a gang leader, just like Muslims protect their Clerics and Jews protect their Rabbis. The Vatican was built off of blood money and tribal war. It is maintained by a credulous man who sells the lie of magic babies and zombie gods.

It does not allow priests to get married. It does not allow women to become priests and do not tell me that the "offical" position is that the Pope or the Vatican itself values homosexuals or same sex marriage, even if you do, your leader does not.

Now if you'd agree that no one should be above the law, IE a Muslim who plots to blow things up. Or say a College coach Penn State, who covers up the child abuse of a fellow coach. If those people should not be above the law, why should the Pope?

The Catholic Church is not perfect, and - being an ancient organisation - has certainly made a few mistakes in its time, but it is not the monstrous organisation its opponents make it out to be.

I was Catholic and I know the history of when that church was started and the thugs who did it were not the slightest bit interested in pluralism, just power. The polytheistic language in Catholics such as bishops and cardinals and Popes and "Saints" are mere titles rewarding gang members and the dark ages was run by these thugs. You were a member or else.

Whatever good you claim they might do is negated by the credulity of the crap they sell. They still sell sexism, they value the denial of equal treatment of gays. They give horrible medical advice about girls and women and abortion and reproductive rights. They are waning in more educated countries as far as getting more new members so they have to pick on less educated more poor nations to get members.

---

What the Vatican needs is to be turned into a Museum like the Pyramids, to remind us that humans have always had silly superstitions.

-----

The Vatican is already a Museum - complete with exhibits - sculpture - paintings - and a bunch of old relics that run the place. YOU pay to see most of it.

However - Pope Benedict was one of the most conservative popes - and his policies forced more people away from religion that towards it. We can only hope that his successor sucks as much as he did

No it may have "Museum" parts but it is still not public property like a public Museum. It is a mansion, specifically owned by the Catholic church.

A "Museum" like the Natural History Museum or Air And space Museum are museums, they don't have a Catholic or Hindu or Jewish bias.

[Minimalist]

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/...index.html

Bishop Richard Williamson is one of four traditionalist bishops whose excommunications Pope Benedict revoked in January 2009, causing an international uproar. In an interview broadcast on Swedish television several days before the move, Bishop Williamson denied the existence of the Nazi gas chambers and the scope of the Holocaust.

If it smells like a bishop, lies like a bishop and fucks little boys like a bishop I bet its a bishop.

[Cyberman]

Does he move diagonally?

[Rev. Rye]

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/...index.html

Bishop Richard Williamson is one of four traditionalist bishops whose excommunications Pope Benedict revoked in January 2009, causing an international uproar. In an interview broadcast on Swedish television several days before the move, Bishop Williamson denied the existence of the Nazi gas chambers and the scope of the Holocaust.

If it smells like a bishop, lies like a bishop and fucks little boys like a bishop I bet its a bishop.

Actually, I think the guy has a point for once; his ordination technically isn't authorised by the Roman Catholic Church, and, thus, he doesn't really have power like a bishop.

[Minimalist]

I'm not willing to let any of these cocksuckers off on any technicalities.

[Angrboda]

...it was a lot of desperate bollocks made up by people to justify their hate. People who start with their conclusion, and then invent facts to support it.

Oh my God. What kind of a lying scumbag would do that?

[Anymouse]

We Catholics find it hilarious at times like these, when the secular media speculates on who will be Pope.

They always say "this is a great chance for the church to modernise" - meaning accept secular morality on homosexuality, abortion and the rest.

Then, when the new guy - inevitably - comes out and doesn't sanction sodomy or infanticide, they are up in arms about this "terribly conservative Pope".

(of course, the initial "great chance" story is simply them laying the groundwork for their inevitable "boo hiss" story).

In an ideal secular world, we would ignore the Church as irrelevant to our lives.
However, the Church insists on inserting itself into secular politics, thus it cannot be ignored.
It certainly does not stand for freedom of religion (you shall have no other gods before me).
It does not stand for liberty (you are only free to do what the Church says the Bible says).
It does not stand for equality, neither for women nor any group it finds objectionable (such as gays). How exactly for example, would a gay marriage threaten my marriage? How would an exclusive gay relationship promote STDs? Or should atheists such as myself not be permitted marriage either? Is that the next step?
It does not stand for the right to life (by opposing all forms of contraception and promoting the death of women and foetuses in its hospitals - but we have already been here)
It does not stand for the poor (it opposes contraception and insists on keeping people in grinding poverty to support families beyond their means, and yet shakes said-same families down for a tithe). Yet it continues to amass fabulous wealth beyond the means of nearly every person, nearly every company, and refuses to be open with its finances on what it does with offerings. In the USA, it gets the benefit of a non-profit organisation without having to say how it uses its money (a problem with all churches, not just the Catholic one).
It does not support stewardship of the Earth, the supposed creation of God (by opposing birth control, the Church turns its least-educated and most poverty-stricken into a plague of locusts).
It does not stand for the advancement of knowledge to better humankind or our understanding of the Universe (it only took four hundred years to "rehabilitate" Galileo - don't they use that term "rehabilitate" in places like prisons and North Korea?)
It does not support education, particularly the sciences (because those same sciences can disprove virtually every claim in the Bible, and its only response is follow the Vicar of Christ and the Bible).
Where exactly does the Church (or any church for that manner) derive the claim to morality, and the right to impose it on all? (They also do not support the claim of free will that they claim to uphold.)
I do not know which nation you are from, but that is immaterial. Most Western democracies have some forms of all of the above, to which the Church is antithetical.
It also requires fealty to the Pope, a foreign king.
The Church is anti-American for sure.

[Justtristo]

I have read that it is likely the next pope will be a Black African, Cardinal Peter Turkson from Ghana to be exact.