(July 24, 2014 at 7:23 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The Church could make a HUGE dent in this problem, and refurbish its image (to an extent) by simply adopting the policy that the sexual abuse of children isn't just a sin, it is also an indictable offense. Announcing that any and all clergy suspected or accused of abusing children will be immediately handed over to the secular authorities for investigation would send the message that the Church will no longer be a haven for paedophiles.

That Francis hasn't taken this step is shameful. I hope it ruins his sleep.

Boru

I'm sure the fucker sleeps like a baby on his golden mattress.

(July 25, 2014 at 12:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(July 24, 2014 at 7:23 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The Church could make a HUGE dent in this problem, and refurbish its image (to an extent) by simply adopting the policy that the sexual abuse of children isn't just a sin, it is also an indictable offense. Announcing that any and all clergy suspected or accused of abusing children will be immediately handed over to the secular authorities for investigation would send the message that the Church will no longer be a haven for paedophiles.

That Francis hasn't taken this step is shameful. I hope it ruins his sleep.

Boru

I'm sure the fucker sleeps like a baby on his golden mattress.

Yet another sentence in which the words "baby" and "fucker" are appropriate when talking about the Catholic church.

(July 25, 2014 at 12:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(July 24, 2014 at 7:23 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The Church could make a HUGE dent in this problem, and refurbish its image (to an extent) by simply adopting the policy that the sexual abuse of children isn't just a sin, it is also an indictable offense. Announcing that any and all clergy suspected or accused of abusing children will be immediately handed over to the secular authorities for investigation would send the message that the Church will no longer be a haven for paedophiles.

That Francis hasn't taken this step is shameful. I hope it ruins his sleep.

Boru

I'm sure the fucker sleeps like a baby on his golden mattress.

Actually, he hasn't slept in the Vatican palace. He has a small hotel room, if I remember correctly. Yet another key piece of PR. Trust me, even though I'm ex-Catholic, I do keep up with the church news.

What does it take to move a mattress?

(July 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What does it take to move a mattress?

How many priests does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None, since priests are supposed to be celibate.

(July 25, 2014 at 8:58 am)Ben Davis Wrote: You need to remember that Catholicism is hierarchical and totalitarian: all decisions are signed off by the Pope. That includes all local decisions, which are signed-off by proxy (infallibility is transmitted from one layer of the hierarchy to the next). Therefore it's the ultimate enabler for despicable acts because the church is forced to cover them up in order to protect the entire concept of Papal infallibility.

Actually, it's the bishops who independently cover them up, not the pope himself.
But let's say that Pope Francis was personally responsible for the legal protection of every priest on the face of the earth. Papal infallibility, as a Church doctrine and not a set of two words, doesn't mean that the pope can't make mistakes. He can say and do a lot of stuff, like allow the ordination of future child rapists, but very rarely does the Catholic Church take some of it and say, "This is right." Twice in its history, actually.
And, considering that absolutely none of his actions, let alone his words, let alone official Church teaching, indicates that child rape is morally acceptable, except that he's afraid to take it on, his infallibility is nowhere close to coming into play.

(July 25, 2014 at 2:55 pm)Purplundy Wrote:

(July 25, 2014 at 8:58 am)Ben Davis Wrote: You need to remember that Catholicism is hierarchical and totalitarian: all decisions are signed off by the Pope. That includes all local decisions, which are signed-off by proxy (infallibility is transmitted from one layer of the hierarchy to the next). Therefore it's the ultimate enabler for despicable acts because the church is forced to cover them up in order to protect the entire concept of Papal infallibility.

Actually, it's the bishops who independently cover them up, not the pope himself.
But let's say that Pope Francis was personally responsible for the legal protection of every priest on the face of the earth. Papal infallibility, as a Church doctrine and not a set of two words, doesn't mean that the pope can't make mistakes. He can say and do a lot of stuff, but very rarely does the Catholic Church take some of it and say, "This is true."
And, considering that absolutely none of his actions, let alone his words, let alone official Church teaching, indicates that child rape is morally acceptable, except that he's afraid to take it on, his infallibility is nowhere close to coming into play.

Well, i would say that the systematic covering up for pedophiles, witholding evidence from the authorities, and utter failure to prevent future abuse is at least a tacit endorsement that the child rape is less important than the image of the church.

(July 25, 2014 at 2:58 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(July 25, 2014 at 2:55 pm)Purplundy Wrote: Actually, it's the bishops who independently cover them up, not the pope himself.
But let's say that Pope Francis was personally responsible for the legal protection of every priest on the face of the earth. Papal infallibility, as a Church doctrine and not a set of two words, doesn't mean that the pope can't make mistakes. He can say and do a lot of stuff, but very rarely does the Catholic Church take some of it and say, "This is true."
And, considering that absolutely none of his actions, let alone his words, let alone official Church teaching, indicates that child rape is morally acceptable, except that he's afraid to take it on, his infallibility is nowhere close to coming into play.

Well, i would say that the systematic covering up for pedophiles, witholding evidence from the authorities, and utter failure to prevent future abuse is at least a tacit endorsement that the child rape is less important than the image of the church.

Quoted for truth.

Sure.
I can concede that Francis might be out to make the Church look 'good'. Any organization would prefer that. I mean, I live in the United States, "Not Sorry" Central. I believe he could also be running out of clergy.
But the notion that if the pope is fighting tooth and nail to maintain the facade of a perfect church, and if he doesn't the "Aha!" moment comes to non-Catholics around the world is preposterous, especially when said pope goes on and on about how much of a sinner he is.

And about Pope Francis sleeping in a hotel room, of course it's a PR stunt, but he's doing it, isn't he? His level of sincerity is impossible to know, because none of us know the Pope personally. But it's not somehow undermined. Jesus entire life was a PR stunt.

(July 25, 2014 at 3:16 pm)Purplundy Wrote: Sure.
I can concede that Francis might be out to make the Church look 'good'. Any organization would prefer that. I mean, I live in the United States, "Not Sorry" Central. I believe he could also be running out of clergy.
But the notion that if the pope is fighting tooth and nail to maintain the facade of a perfect church, and if he doesn't the "Aha!" moment comes to non-Catholics around the world is preposterous, especially when said pope goes on and on about how much of a sinner he is.

And about Pope Francis sleeping in a hotel room, of course it's a PR stunt, but he's doing it, isn't he? His level of sincerity is impossible to know, because none of us know the Pope personally. But it's not somehow undermined. Jesus entire life was a PR stunt.

It's nice and all that he's a good guy, and good for him for making these symbolic gestures, but what's the goddamn holdup? He could have solved the problem on day one by, as others have said, simply proclaiming anyone suspected of child abuse in the Church should be allowed to be arrested by the authorities- INSTEAD of being moved around. Except he also moved them around when he was in Argentina...makes one wonder doesn't it?