How to answer accusations against the pope? - Page 3

CrimsonCatholic · #31 Aug 6, '12, 11:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

The documentation on who knew what, when they knew it, and did they cover it up would probably fill a freight train. Analyzing it would be a different matter. Most of these discussions are impromptu and between people who are not prepared with all that documentation at hand. Consequently, it would be difficult to carry on an objective discussion, especially with people who probably already have their minds made up or they wouldn't have broached the question to begin with.

_________________
The whole purpose of much political rhetoric is to keep us from thinking, and stir our emotions instead.

Agreed.

Hokomai · #32 Aug 6, '12, 7:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

Then in that case, why not suggest that the topic be switched to something like "answering accusations against Mohammed"? Why must it always be the pope or the CC?

Answer: there really is a double standard, and the pope and the Church are held to the higher one.

Ummm let's think. One has been dead for more than a thousand years and one is still alive. No, that can't be it. Got me stumped too. Must be a conspiracy.

lerapt78 · #33 Aug 7, '12, 3:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

I was thinking of any Islamic nation, Tibet before 1950, the Papal States, and the US and Sweden.

I see, but how are non-theocratic nations more "open"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedonaman

Then in that case, why not suggest that the topic be switched to something like "answering accusations against Mohammed"? Why must it always be the pope or the CC?

Answer: there really is a double standard, and the pope and the Church are held to the higher one.

There's a very special brand of hatred reserved all special-like for the CC. You know what always bothers me about accusations regarding the scandal (aside from the abuse itself)? Why is it they never focus on the very homosexual nature of the entire scandal, hmmm? Opponents don't like to confront that one, for some reason.

Hokomai · #34 Aug 7, '12, 4:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by lerapt78

I see, but how are non-theocratic nations more "open"?

They typically have provision for freedom of information and udcial review of decisions to withhold information. The Vatican should do the same thing. It would help build confidence and trust. at least, I hope it would.

sedonaman · #35 Aug 7, '12, 5:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

Ummm let's think. One has been dead for more than a thousand years and one is still alive. No, that can't be it. Got me stumped too. Must be a conspiracy.

How did you know?

epan · #36 Aug 7, '12, 5:40 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrimsonCatholic

Many times as catholics we will here from People who will ask, what about the pope knowing about the sexual abuse being committed in the church and did nothing about this.

Usually they will say it was before he was elected as pope. What information out there shows he was not involved or of he was, what does that change?

Thanks.

It's impossible to know what Cardinal Ratzinger knew, unless he tells us, or a witness comes forward. The lack of transparency is disappointing. The Congregation For the Doctrine of Faith does handle sex abuse complaints, as I understand it. That is why the assumption is made by many that Cardinal Ratzinger would have known about these charges at the time.

Where the Church has been investigated, it has been found in some archdioceses that the priority was placed on protecting the reputation of the Church, and on minimizing financial loss, at the expense of the welfare of the victims.

This is no different from what one would expect from a large corporation. Part of the indignation is that many people think that the Church should put ethical concerns ahead of profit and fear of embarrassment. Since the activities were criminal, it may be safely assumed that there is also an interest in avoiding being held accountable criminally.

It seems to me, that given what is actually known, that the Pope is not in a defensible position. He is after all, the head of the Church, and he was in charge of the part of the Church which would have dealt with the matter. Therefore, it was his responsibility, just as responsibility would fall on any leader of any other organization in a similar position.

If he did know, then some serious questions arise. If he did not know, then some serious questions arise as to the management of the office that he held at the time.

lerapt78 · #37 Aug 7, '12, 1:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

They typically have provision for freedom of information and udcial review of decisions to withhold information. The Vatican should do the same thing. It would help build confidence and trust. at least, I hope it would.

I may be wrong in this, but I believe what you refer to has to do with freedom of information to the subjects/citizens of said country. The US is not subject to Vatican Authority and therefore would have to right to information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by epan

Where the Church has been investigated, it has been found in some archdioceses that the priority was placed on protecting the reputation of the Church, and on minimizing financial loss, at the expense of the welfare of the victims.

This is no different from what one would expect from a large corporation. Part of the indignation is that many people think that the Church should put ethical concerns ahead of profit and fear of embarrassment. Since the activities were criminal, it may be safely assumed that there is also an interest in avoiding being held accountable criminally.
.

I agree with this, and the reassignment of the abusers has infuriated me as much as any non-Catholic.