netcrusher88 wrote: dedwrekka wrote:
The Vatican didn't have any direct control or involvement in the cover-up, but once it was exposed the offending priests were imprisoned, excommunicated,, and many were forced to leave the church or were defrocked
. Much as it was with what Ferdinand and Isabella did with their local churches, the Vatican has little information or control over local diocese. This does not mean that the Vatican gets a pass on taking a hand with correcting what some people did within the church, but they are
taking it in hand and people are getting punished for it.
Oh, okay. Sending priests credibly accused of child abuse off to some retreat and then to some other residence (the location of which I'm sure they never deign to disclose) in perpetuity while shielding them from the law (serious punishment, that) totally
makes up for all the other ways the Catholic church has shielded priests credibly accused of child abuse from the law for decades. And continues to.
Um, no, read the article. Those who were guilty of the crimes and were still eligible to be prosecuted under the law were turned over to the law to face prosecution. Only those who were accused (but not necessarily guilty), but could not be prosecuted under the law were given the option of resigning or facing house arrest. There is no conspiracy on the part of the Vatican, the Vatican took more of a hand in punishing their people than most corporations or major organizations would. The Vatican was not trying to hide people from the law they were turning them over to the law. You seem to be upset about any situation that arises out of it. The Vatican doesn't burn people at the stake anymore, so nothing seems likely to appease you.
Did you read that article?
Alright, first the guy was not found to have molested anyone at the time, and had gone into therapy to seek treatment. Ratzinger was notified, and actually took an interest in it and kept checks on the priest in question. The priest was showing that he knew his feelings were wrong, and tried to seek help. Ratzinger took a gamble on that and decided to release him to his duties where he was supervised and Ratzinger kept updated on the situation. The gamble failed, but it doesn't sound like it was through any fault of Cardinal Ratzinger as he couldn't send the priest in for prosecution because he hadn't actually done anything, and the man was actively seeking help and recognized that he was doing something wrong, meanwhile the priest was still under continued scrutiny to try and look for any lapses. It sounds like Ratzinger did pretty much everything a boss could do without simply flipping out which would have definitely sent the priest off the deep end.
Secondly, there were problems with chain of command and the fact that it wasn't even Ratzinger who made the call. If you've ever worked in a bureaucracy, you'd know that the upper management really doesn't get a lot of details on what's happening with individual people.
That doesn't change the fact that it is a problem endemic to the Catholic church as a whole.
Again, you're unrealistically calling everyone in the church into the conspiracy and calling them all pedophiles.
A lot of the reports of child abuse by clergy have come from the US (all over the US, of course); but there have also been many from Ireland, Belgium, Germany, and England. Just off the top of my head. This is not a problem limited to just a few occurrences in one or two places.
But neither is it happening with everyone in the church as you're implying. Of the first two countries you named, there are hundreds of Catholic Churches. Germany probably in the upper hundreds. Even if it happened once in every 100 churches (Which is way more than it has actually been happening) it wouldn't be as wide-spread as you're claiming. It's bad for it to happen once. But people are claiming that it's happening everywhere, in all churches, and that everyone is a pedophile. I'm sorry, but the scaremongering has to stop sometime, and the education on what to look for, avoid, and how to prevent it has to begin.
I also want to point out that, to date (and to my knowledge), the Catholic church has yet to tangibly punish or defrock a bishop for participating in covering up child abuse, which is what we call in the real world "obstruction of justice".
Umm.. no, obstruction of justice is what would have happened if the Vatican, upon learning of the problems and attempted cover up, had refused to turn over the offenders to custody. Which they haven't.As to defrocking
I mean, I guess it might come off as a bit hypocritical seeing as how they elected one as Pope.
So, with no evidence to support it, and no information backing it up, you're calling the Pope a pedophile. Damn, I knew I smelled troll.
The Catholic Church did not say that condoms would exacerbate the problem. What Pope Benedict said
was that condoms were a part of the breakdown of "sexual morality" and that the use of artificial birth control was part of a trend of pre-marital sex that was helping to spread sexually transmitted diseases.
The church does not state that condoms do not help prevent the spread of the disease, but they do say that the better method of not catching or transmitting the disease sexually
is through abstinence.
I see your articles from 2005 and 2006 (the latter being the Pope backpedaling on comments that distributing condoms increases the spread of AIDS) and raise you one from March 2009
, with the pontiff at it again: "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".
Not a direct quote, and still part of the link that I gave. Again you're twisting the words to fit your agenda, because the Pope was not backpedaling on saying that condoms spread aids. What was said was
"The Pope warned that contraception was one of a host of trends contributing to a "breakdown in sexual morality", and church teachings should not be ignored.
"It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality," he added. "
What you apparently heard was "BLARG CONDOMS SPREAD AIDS!", but what the "contraception mentality" means is the mentality that because birth control is out there, and can help prevent the spread of AIDS that people therefore have nothing to worry about and can have sex as they feel like it. This isn't true. Aids can still be spread, just as people can still get pregnant when using condoms. The better answer is to not take chances. The Popes have been keeping an eye on the situation and continued to hold discussions on the issue. Recently the decision was made that people are not listening wholly to the church and were continuing to have pre-marital sex without condoms (because they somehow viewed one as impossible but thought that the other was forgivable), so they reversed the decision on condom usage.
This isn't about who Catholics fuck or don't fuck, or if they fuck; this is about the Catholic church trying to stand in the way of others exercising their, what's the word, oh yes personal choice safely.
Not really, they could still practice their right to choose. In fact you just stated that they were already practicing that right in the last five words of that sentence. The problem comes down to ignorance and the lack of information. It's not the Church that gives that (though they've never said that condoms do not prevent the spread, simply that they are not fitting with the Church's stance on procreation), it's the people, the educators, the government. There are people separate from the RCC that still think that virgins or magic potions cure AIDS and STDs. There needs to be education to prevent the spread, not simply "Condoms or no condoms".