Pope Allegedly Sought Immunity For Abuse Crimes Just Before Resigning update

[The Grand Nudger]

Not I, the next 5 minutes of my life is worth more than the entirety of all popes existences combined - to me. Besides, I shouldn't have to give up something so precious to see something so menial accomplished.

[Nobody]

Five minutes? I would.
To surrender that amount of time, which is even more than it takes to type this reply, and watch the primary accomplice for crimes against humanity and countless offenses of his being a co-conspirator to the cover up of child molestation world wide, it's certainly not menial in my book.

Transferring a pedophile to another parish so that that deviant child rapist has a fresh community of victims unaware of the new predator in their midst is the height of depravity and evil.
The 'vicar' of Christ? He's a living embodiment of all that the church describes as, "Sin".

He should have to answer for that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, but taking a person to task on a crime they may have committed should be menial, regardless of who that person is or what crime they may have committed (as menial in process as a traffic ticket- regardless of the offense). To suggest otherwise is to allow an importance and weight to the office of say, The Papacy, that does not exist - in my mind (especially with regards to law and the execution thereof). It would not be "THE POPE" or "THE CHURCH", for example, that was convicted of or exonerated of said this or that, but Joseph Ratzinger - random douchebag from wherever.

[Angrboda]

I'm not particularly knowledgable about the subject, but Ratzo's rolling back the reforms of Vatican II disturb me far more than the complicity in child abuse. In the latter, he's largely just another cog in a machine, no more particularly worthy of individual prosecution than any of the manyfold generals ignored in the trial of leaders of the defeated German Reich. At the end of the day, I suspect he was little more than an ecclesiastical paper pusher, shuffling lives from his in basket to his out basket. Vatican II on the other hand, was a cog reversing its direction and setting time back a few notches.

The other problem is that the authority of bodies like the ICC to try people for crimes against humanity exists as a web of international treaties, among which, significant links are missing. (To my recollection, the U.S. agreed to the necessary treaty, but its force was disavowed under the Bush administration. There are similar stories to be told for other significant players.) In the main, the effective ability of bodies like the League of Nations, the U.N., and the ICC exists more symbolically than in actual reality. And then there's the hypocrisy element, as such crimes have usually only been prosecuted against the losers of wars or other military action, making such proceedings appear to be a shameless example of the victors writing the history on the backs of the losers, when the only real distinction between them and other equally deserving candidates is that they didn't lose a war.

The other important point is that these calls for major political leaders to be tried for crimes against humanity are all show and no go. Anyone with a lick of sense (imo) knows that these movements are little more than PR campaigns which consume time, resources, and attention when steps which might actually have a chance of producing constructive change are thus shunted and ignored.

[Gabriel Syme]

This thread is a good example of the wilfull self-delusion which many atheists indulge in.

The Pope is not facing criminal charges of any nature.

He did not seek immunity from any crime, because he faces no charges.

(note that, as a Head of State, he would have already enjoyed immunity from prosecution, so why retire if he did have charges to answer? The whole premise here is a total nonsense).

Note that the threat title uses the big give-away word - "allegedly".

Such words can essentially be taken to mean "this story is not true".

I dont get why atheists go in for these low-brow gutter media stories. Maybe it makes life more exicting? Maybe you feel like you have an identity or purpose of your own, if you define someone else as an enemy?

Whatever it is, I am not sure that Id like to live my life within a propaganda bubble, where outlook on life is essentially a complete distortion.

Why not put your time into something more worthwhile?

The Pope is abdicating because he is a very old man, who is very frail and quite simply is not physically up to the task any more. He is so weak, he cant even walk the length of St Peters Basilica. There has been a marked physical deterioration in his condition recently, he has lost a lot of weight and it is reported his vision is failing.

There is nothing more to this than that - health issues related to age.

If he was 10 or 20 years younger, he would keep going, no doubt.

But he was already old when elected, and we have had a good 8 years of service out of him. I dont think any reasonable person would begrudge him the time he has left, once he leaves office.

[Cato]

Note that the threat title uses the big give-away word - "allegedly".

Such words can essentially be taken to mean "this story is not true".

This betrays your pliable standard of evidence for belief.

Lets assume that Ratzinger was charged and convicted for complicity in covering up the actions of child abusing priests. Let's further assume that only second hand hearsay was submitted as evidence. You would cry foul and throw a fit. I would agree in a strict legal sense.

Yet, you believe and accept as fact the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ based on flimsier testimony.

[Minimalist]

Why do you remain a member of a cult of child molesting perverts, Gabe?

Your pope is a criminal fuckhead who was involved in this conspiracy up to his eyebrows. What is it about catholics that divorces them from reality?

[Gabriel Syme]

This betrays your pliable standard of evidence for belief.

Lets assume that Ratzinger was charged and convicted for complicity in covering up the actions of child abusing priests. Let's further assume that only second hand hearsay was submitted as evidence. You would cry foul and throw a fit. I would agree in a strict legal sense.

Yet, you believe and accept as fact the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ based on flimsier testimony.

Hi cato123

I disagree I have a differing standard for evidence.

When it comes to earthly matters is it possible to make firm statements one way or another.

An article which says "Pope allegedly sought immunity" that means (i) the Pope didnt seek immunity and (ii) the media are only pretending he did, in order to titilate their readers with a lurid story.

I dont think any rational person would disagree with that. (and its the same with anyone - eg if I read a story about what Oscar Pistorius allegedly did today, I will not believe it).

The media should report only facts and make its analysis/comment - it should not be involved in speculation or pretence.

As for faith:

I presume you allude to the lack of contemporary writings from Jesus own period to support his existence and/or the claims made about him*.

(*though note that, despite this, there is almost universal scholarly agreement regarding the definite historicity of Jesus Christ - no serious historian or scholar claims he didnt exist, though of course this does not automatically prove the extraordinary claims regarding his identity and nature).

It makes sense that there were few contemporary writings: remember this was a society which was mostly illiterate - I saw a paper suggesting just 3% literacy in that part of the world, during the time of Christ. (Literacy would increase with social rank and proximity to urban centres).

So, given most people could not read, it is clear that books would be of very limited value indeed, when it came to Jesus getting his message across - or spreading news of him to others. In those days, you really had to meet people face-to-face and speak to them - as is reflected by the tales of Jesus travelling around Judea/Gallilea etc during his ministry.

It also makes sense that Christ is mentioned by various non-Christian sources - jews, romans etc - after his death and leaving behind of a movement. Naturally, the reported events surrounding his death and the explosion of his followers afterward, is what would have marked him out to observers as being markedly different from the last dissident or propagator of all-tales.

There is a lot more involved in faith however, than simply accepting scripture. I woudl also name the following as being bound up with my faith:

1) Philosophy (Aristotle, Aquinas, myself (!) etc etc)

2) Personal experience of a natural longing and desire for religion/faith/God. I am lucky enough to have lived the first part of my adult life as a non-religious person - I say "lucky" as it means I can compare life with, and without, religion. Its much better with! lol

3) The high quality of the Catholic Churchs arguments and how they are continually shown to be right (eg in the last century, the Church was proved right that the universe had been created and about the social effect of contraception. Secular societies response to this has been to not ever talk about the first point, and simply pretend the 2nd never happened). Equally, the poor, reductive arguments of secular society - which either patronise or pretend - turn me off the idea that "we know best".

4) The remarkable and transformative nature of my own experience of religion. To compare my life now, with my life 10 years ago, is like night and day. It has improved immeasureably for the better - and I do not mean that I am richer, or more succesfully, or better looking or whatever. I mean in terms of the transfomation of my attitudes and behaviours, my outlook on life and my understanding of life and what it is about.

5) My experience of life generally, which tells me that human beings are not simply contingent flesh and blood creatures. We are something more.

Probably more things too - just some examples.

Tbh, I would be surprised if anyones faith was based wholly on a simple reading of a holy book and then announcing "yes, I buy this".

As Chesterton put it:

"Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair".

Yes, philiosophising and emotional response are definitely of more use when trying to understand religion, than are the types of banal facts which humanity is able to state with certainty.

Cheers
GS

[Cato]

When it comes to earthly matters is it possible to make firm statements one way or another.

What was the starting point of Jesus' supposed acsension?

An article which says "Pope allegedly sought immunity" that means (i) the Pope didnt seek immunity and (ii) the media are only pretending he did, in order to titilate their readers with a lurid story.

I dont think any rational person would disagree with that. (and its the same with anyone - eg if I read a story about what Oscar Pistorius allegedly did today, I will not believe it).

You seriously need to consult a reputable dictionary regarding the definition and use of allegedly.

[xXUKAtheistForTheTruthXx]

After resigning Pope Benedict XVI will remain in the Vatican to avoid criminal prosecution for his role in the sexual abuse of children by clergy, according to Vatican sources.http://www.examiner.com/article/pope-wil...-sex-abuse

Personally I would Higher an undercover agent to drag his ass to the European court of justice.

Personally I'd abolish the Vatican's independence and bring him, and all other pervs which cover it up with theistic smoke screening, to courts to EVERY country he has done sex offenses in AND give lifetime deprivation of liberty to the hypocritical assholes who support sex offenders be immune from justice while they tell to their choir boy kid (who is probably obsessed with living in a rural area) that nothing even remotely wrong or anything that is not christian can harm him after he bitches about Atheism not having a god, like: "0MG U H3RITICZ!!!!!!!!!!! G0 2 HLL!!!!!!" and after he is butthurt that Insert Atheist Here has kicked his ass in an argument, he goes to the TV and switches it on and watches "God Channel" or a televangelist, "Church Prayer Songs", "Church ____", "Jesus ______"
or a overall crappy variety of channels.