Is the Pope guilty of sexual abuse cover up?

[theskull1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8622671.stm

I really hope there was a slant put on the Pope's comments and he's not actually suggesting catholics repent for the things they've done!

I don't think that is the case at all Pints.  In fact the article answers your very question:

the gravity of the scandal harms all Christians.

As much as the Church needs to seek forgiveness we should all seek forgiveness and repent for our own sins.  He is not trying to take anything away from the sins of the Church but also as Pope, reminding us of our own sins.

"OK we've kinived, colluded & protected child abusers and ruined the lives of countless numbers of little children for generations and have remained silent only until begrudingly pressured to do so BUT.... BUT..... BUT.... THE REST OF YOU LOT should focus on you own indescretions (e.g saying bad words, shouting at the children, missing mass, use red diesel etc etc) and seek your own forgiveness.....leave us to repent for our own sins"

So this is a fair comment for the pope to make do you reckon Iceman in the context of the severity of the child abuse scandal?

I think comments like this are just digging a bigger hole

[johnneycool]

One thing I found interesting after googling this SSPX society was just how responsive the vatican could be when someone broke canon law. Serious digging still needs to be done to find out the reasons why they have not been so responsive to their own breaking civil law.

Thank god the virgin mary was there to broker a deal to lift the excommunications last year. She really is dealing with the important issues first

Considering the SSPX and their congregations have been ostracised for 30 years you'd hardly call it responsive.

Did you not see what I was referring to in bold?

Canon law broke one day, excommunicated the next. That is responsiveness

When Bishop Casey's child became known, his arse didn't hit the ground and he was whisked off to anonymity in a matter of seconds. No need to mull over that one for the better part of a decade!!



Is using red diesil as sin now? That wasn't in the ten commandments i was taught!

[longrunsthefox]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8622671.stm

I really hope there was a slant put on the Pope's comments and he's not actually suggesting catholics repent for the things they've done!

I don't think that is the case at all Pints.  In fact the article answers your very question:

the gravity of the scandal harms all Christians.

As much as the Church needs to seek forgiveness we should all seek forgiveness and repent for our own sins.  He is not trying to take anything away from the sins of the Church but also as Pope, reminding us of our own sins.

He is trying to deflect from the evil perpetrated by his comrades and covered up by himself and others but if you want to self flagalatte Iceman go ahead...   

[orangeman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8627429.stm

[Main Street]

04/19/2010
Yet another dastardly attempt by heretics to blacken the name of the Pope

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,689761,00.html

Catholic Abuse Scandal
Was Munich's Vicar General (Gruber) Forced to Serve as Ratzinger's Scapegoat?

On the morning of March 12, while the press office was busy drafting a statement in which Gruber was given the full blame for H.'s (the sex abuse priest) appointment to serve as a pastor, and that included Gruber's personal apology, a church official was badgering the retired priest on the phone.

But Gruber, who felt put under pressure, later confided in theologian friends. He told them that he had been emphatically "asked" to assume full responsibility for the affair, and that church officials had promptly faxed him a copy of the statement and instructed him to make any changes he deemed necessary.

To everyone's surprise, Gruber wrote an open letter in which he qualified the archdiocese's statement, writing that he did not sign any documents over which he had no influence. He also noted that he was "very upset" about the "manner in which the incidents were portrayed" by the archdiocese. "And the phrase 'acted on his own authority' also wasn't discussed with me," he wrote.

[Ulick]

Benedict XVI after five years: time is running out for a great reforming Pope

Today is the fifth anniversary of the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope, and there is chance – just a chance – that it also marks the beginning of the end of the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. Yesterday, the Pope was reduced to tears when he met victims of predatory priests in Malta. His horror at these crimes is not in doubt. And now, at last, sections of the secular media are grudgingly acknowledging that those journalists who tried to paint the former Cardinal Ratzinger as the protector of paedophiles made a serious error of judgment.

Still, the Vatican could have done much more to stop the frenzied misdirection of public outrage towards the Holy Father. That it failed to do so tells us something depressing: that Benedict XVI, the cleverest pope for centuries, an important thinker in his own right and the author of wonderful teaching documents, may lack the administrative skills and support that he needs to push through desperately needed reforms.

How to sum up the particular vision of Benedict? In an article for Catholic World Report, the Ratzinger scholar Tracey Rowland quotes a line from the 1963 Hollywood film, The Cardinal: "The Church ... thinks in centuries, not decades." Fr Ratzinger is reported to have been a consultant for the film; he would certainly endorse that particular line. As Dr Rowland argues, Benedict wishes above all to lay the groundwork for healing the schisms that have torn limbs from Catholic Christianity, by purifying the worship of the Church in a way that enables Christians who are Catholics at heart to return into communion with Peter.

He understands – as no Pope before him has done – that conservative Anglo-Catholics are not Protestants, but aspiring Catholics for whom the scandalously bad worship of the post-Vatican II Church is a spiritual, not just an aesthetic, obstacle to reunion. Hence the Ordinariate provision, a structure for ex-Anglicans that will be set up soon but will take years to reach maturity (if it is not sabotaged). Hence also the removal of virtually all restrictions on the celebration of the classical form of the Roman Rite – to my mind, the boldest and finest single achievement of Benedict's pontificate to date.

Correctly orientated worship, believes Pope Benedict, is a sine qua non for the operation of the redeeming love of Christ in the world. That is why his request that priests should say Mass facing a crucifix on the altar is so important to him; he would prefer that the celebrant faced eastwards, in the same direction as the congregation, but at least the central crucifix helps ensure that the consecration is not directed at the people, which would make it more like a Protestant shared meal than a sacrifice.

But Catholics should ask themselves: when did they last visit an ordinary parish church and see a priest observing the Pope's wishes? Just as the correct orientation of the altar matters enormously to Benedict XVI, so the disregard of this reform tells us a lot about the fundamental disconnection between the Pontiff and his priests.

This disconnection is made possible by the immense power of the bishop and the diocese in the Church – a power that also made possible the sheltering of so many clerical sex abusers not just from the police but also from the Vatican. Much of this power is derived from Scripture: the diocese has been the fundamental unit of the Church since its institution. A crucial problem is that the Vatican – a tiny organisation, really, about the size of a middle-sized American corporation – has neglected its historic role of aligning Catholic bishops with their Pontiff. Benedict XVI wants to reform the Church; but how can he do so when the dicasteries (major departments) are run by cardinals and archbishops of widely differing degrees of loyalty and mental alertness?

In an interview he gave in the 1980s, Cardinal Ratzinger said that he had come to appreciate the laid-back Italian way of doing things, since it meant that the Vatican didn't rush into bad decisions. I wonder if he still thinks that, surveying the wreckage of European Catholicism. No wonder no one goes to church on the continent, for what they encounter is barely recognisable as Catholic. Even the philistine horrors of the Archdiocese of Liverpool cannot begin to compare with the liturgical desert of many French, German, Austrian and Italian dioceses, long since captured by the exhausted aesthetic and pastoral practices of 1960s liberal Protestantism. And who let this happen? The old men in the Vatican.

I wrote last week that, as a result of recent scandals, the Pope finally has a chance to clear out some of the cardinals who are too compromised by laziness, corruption and bad taste to initiate the Benedictine reform. Since then, I've spoken to a friend of Benedict XVI who feels that he lacks the will to effect the necessary changes. Also, it wasn't exactly encouraging to see the Pope fall asleep during Mass in Malta; he is not ill or confused, but he is 83 and (though the world has been slow to pick up on this) of a naturally gentle disposition.

I was in St Peter's Square five years ago. It was hilarious to witness the rage of the Tabletistas (though, to my everlasting regret, I missed Bobbie's blubbing). But it was hard to know what to expect of a papacy led by "God's Rottweiler", as we still thought of him. Not yet having read his amazing books, I didn't anticipate the intensity of Ratzinger's vision of renovation. Still less did I guess that his reforms might founder because he is simply too nice.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100035325/benedict-xvi-after-five-years-time-is-running-out-for-a-great-reforming-pope/

[mylestheslasher]

Benedict XVI after five years: time is running out for a great reforming Pope

Today is the fifth anniversary of the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope, and there is chance – just a chance – that it also marks the beginning of the end of the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. Yesterday, the Pope was reduced to tears when he met victims of predatory priests in Malta. His horror at these crimes is not in doubt. And now, at last, sections of the secular media are grudgingly acknowledging that those journalists who tried to paint the former Cardinal Ratzinger as the protector of paedophiles made a serious error of judgment.

Still, the Vatican could have done much more to stop the frenzied misdirection of public outrage towards the Holy Father. That it failed to do so tells us something depressing: that Benedict XVI, the cleverest pope for centuries, an important thinker in his own right and the author of wonderful teaching documents, may lack the administrative skills and support that he needs to push through desperately needed reforms.

How to sum up the particular vision of Benedict? In an article for Catholic World Report, the Ratzinger scholar Tracey Rowland quotes a line from the 1963 Hollywood film, The Cardinal: "The Church ... thinks in centuries, not decades." Fr Ratzinger is reported to have been a consultant for the film; he would certainly endorse that particular line. As Dr Rowland argues, Benedict wishes above all to lay the groundwork for healing the schisms that have torn limbs from Catholic Christianity, by purifying the worship of the Church in a way that enables Christians who are Catholics at heart to return into communion with Peter.

He understands – as no Pope before him has done – that conservative Anglo-Catholics are not Protestants, but aspiring Catholics for whom the scandalously bad worship of the post-Vatican II Church is a spiritual, not just an aesthetic, obstacle to reunion. Hence the Ordinariate provision, a structure for ex-Anglicans that will be set up soon but will take years to reach maturity (if it is not sabotaged). Hence also the removal of virtually all restrictions on the celebration of the classical form of the Roman Rite – to my mind, the boldest and finest single achievement of Benedict's pontificate to date.

Correctly orientated worship, believes Pope Benedict, is a sine qua non for the operation of the redeeming love of Christ in the world. That is why his request that priests should say Mass facing a crucifix on the altar is so important to him; he would prefer that the celebrant faced eastwards, in the same direction as the congregation, but at least the central crucifix helps ensure that the consecration is not directed at the people, which would make it more like a Protestant shared meal than a sacrifice.

But Catholics should ask themselves: when did they last visit an ordinary parish church and see a priest observing the Pope's wishes? Just as the correct orientation of the altar matters enormously to Benedict XVI, so the disregard of this reform tells us a lot about the fundamental disconnection between the Pontiff and his priests.

This disconnection is made possible by the immense power of the bishop and the diocese in the Church – a power that also made possible the sheltering of so many clerical sex abusers not just from the police but also from the Vatican. Much of this power is derived from Scripture: the diocese has been the fundamental unit of the Church since its institution. A crucial problem is that the Vatican – a tiny organisation, really, about the size of a middle-sized American corporation – has neglected its historic role of aligning Catholic bishops with their Pontiff. Benedict XVI wants to reform the Church; but how can he do so when the dicasteries (major departments) are run by cardinals and archbishops of widely differing degrees of loyalty and mental alertness?

In an interview he gave in the 1980s, Cardinal Ratzinger said that he had come to appreciate the laid-back Italian way of doing things, since it meant that the Vatican didn't rush into bad decisions. I wonder if he still thinks that, surveying the wreckage of European Catholicism. No wonder no one goes to church on the continent, for what they encounter is barely recognisable as Catholic. Even the philistine horrors of the Archdiocese of Liverpool cannot begin to compare with the liturgical desert of many French, German, Austrian and Italian dioceses, long since captured by the exhausted aesthetic and pastoral practices of 1960s liberal Protestantism. And who let this happen? The old men in the Vatican.

I wrote last week that, as a result of recent scandals, the Pope finally has a chance to clear out some of the cardinals who are too compromised by laziness, corruption and bad taste to initiate the Benedictine reform. Since then, I've spoken to a friend of Benedict XVI who feels that he lacks the will to effect the necessary changes. Also, it wasn't exactly encouraging to see the Pope fall asleep during Mass in Malta; he is not ill or confused, but he is 83 and (though the world has been slow to pick up on this) of a naturally gentle disposition.

I was in St Peter's Square five years ago. It was hilarious to witness the rage of the Tabletistas (though, to my everlasting regret, I missed Bobbie's blubbing). But it was hard to know what to expect of a papacy led by "God's Rottweiler", as we still thought of him. Not yet having read his amazing books, I didn't anticipate the intensity of Ratzinger's vision of renovation. Still less did I guess that his reforms might founder because he is simply too nice.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100035325/benedict-xvi-after-five-years-time-is-running-out-for-a-great-reforming-pope/

Damian Thompson is a conservative British journalist, author and blogger. He is Blogs Editor of the Telegraph Media Group, for whom he blogs about religion, politics and classical music. He is also a regular leader writer for The Daily Telegraph and editor in chief of the Catholic Herald.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Thompson

[Ulick]

Damian Thompson is a conservative British journalist, author and blogger. He is Blogs Editor of the Telegraph Media Group, for whom he blogs about religion, politics and classical music. He is also a regular leader writer for The Daily Telegraph and editor in chief of the Catholic Herald.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Thompson

And?

[mylestheslasher]

Just putting info in the public domain for you. I always like to know the background of the journalist I read so I can understand who butters his bread.

[Ulick]

Just putting info in the public domain for you. I always like to know the background of the journalist I read so I can understand who butters his bread.

Erm... if you click on the link I provided it'll tell you exactly who he is. The point of posting the piece was to illustrate that the Church isn't the single unitary organisation as some of you seem to think it is.

[mylestheslasher]

Just putting info in the public domain for you. I always like to know the background of the journalist I read so I can understand who butters his bread.

Erm... if you click on the link I provided it'll tell you exactly who he is. The point of posting the piece was to illustrate that the Church isn't the single unitary organisation as some of you seem to think it is.

Does your link tell us that he is the editor of the Catholic Herald?

[Ulick]

Does your link tell us that he is the editor of the Catholic Herald?

Well if you read the piece it's a bit f**king obvious he's not going to be editor of the Protestant Post.

[theskull1]

Just putting info in the public domain for you. I always like to know the background of the journalist I read so I can understand who butters his bread.

Erm... if you click on the link I provided it'll tell you exactly who he is. The point of posting the piece was to illustrate that the Church isn't the single unitary organisation as some of you seem to think it is.

What should I have learned from that far from impartial link Ulick in regards to this topic?

 

[mylestheslasher]

Does your link tell us that he is the editor of the Catholic Herald?

Well if you read the piece it's a bit f**king obvious he's not going to be editor of the Protestant Post.

Exactly Ulick now we are getting somewhere. The guy is obviously a biased reporter, you've as much as admitted it. You have no love for the catholic church yet you continue  to paste stories with a bias to the catholic church. Half the time you don't paste the link but this time you did because it was from the telegraph. All I did was inform people that it was another catholic newspaper you were effectively pasting. Now you are getting touchy

For a lad with no love for the catholic church you read a hell of a lot of their papers!

[Ulick]

Just putting info in the public domain for you. I always like to know the background of the journalist I read so I can understand who butters his bread.

Erm... if you click on the link I provided it'll tell you exactly who he is. The point of posting the piece was to illustrate that the Church isn't the single unitary organisation as some of you seem to think it is.

What should I have learned from that far from impartial link Ulick in regards to this topic?

Who said it was impartial? If you read it you will see it's very partial. The clue is in my post that you quoted.