Is Ratzinger A Pedophile Himself?

[Joanne98]

If the successful gut fighter in the most richly brocaded gown in the Vatican has a yen for young boys, like so many of the corrupt men who work for him, there hasn't been any evidence provided yet. The Vicar of Christ has a startlingly un-Christ-like record both when it comes to protecting young children against his predatory employees, most of whom feel that free sexual access to children is an entitlement or at least a long established perk of the Roman Catholic priesthood, and when it comes to the universal messages of love and acceptance at the heart of Jesus' message. Ratzinger is a political animal and a far right extremist who clawed his way to the top of his company. He doesn't give a shit about young children or mundane issues like serial rapists in his employ. He cares about keeping the Roman Catholic Church a vehicle for a kind of conservatism that Jesus railed against and abhorred.

We've often found that the loudest and most homophobic voices in the political arena against the LGBT community belong to twisted and deranged closet cases. Currently two of the most anti-gay members of Congress, screaming fanatics Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and Trent Franks (R-AZ), are both self-loathing closet cases, not unlike notorious Republican predators Jim West (R-WA), Larry Craig (R-ID), David Dreier (R-CA), Mark Foley (R-FL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and the countless other frightened and delusional right-wing hate-mongers and hypocrites, as former Congressman and American Conservative Union founder Robert Bauman explains in great detail in his book, The Gentleman From Maryland: The Conscience Of A Gay Conservative, written after he was caught having sex with an underage boy in a public toilet and kicked to the curb by his wife, family and right-wing collaborators inside Congress and out. Makes for a good read. Ratzinger ought to make it required reading for all his employees.

In 1972 Stephen Kiesle was ordained a Catholic priest in Oakland, California. Like so many lay conservatives-- the devout Catholic Robert Bauman being just one of many examples-- he started sneaking around and looking for ways to take advantage of young boys. Priests have an in-built advantage over young boys they can get into their clutches, and Kielse embarked on a perfectly normal-- normal within the Roman Catholic Church-- career of raping the underage sons of his parishioners. Just six years after being ordained, he was arrested for "molesting" two boys he had gotten his hands on at his church. He was charged with tying them up and getting to "know" them in a way the Bible-- not to mention the laws of California-- say older men are not to do with children. He pled "no contest" to a lesser charge and was sentenced to three years probation, and his record was expunged, because conservative society is as eager to protect these predators as is the conservative church.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-ratzinger-pedophile-himself.html

[pnwmom]

1. anti-Catholic bigotry. n/t

[laconicsax]

3. No, it's not.

There are no general statements about all Catholics, just specific statements about one Catholic.

This is no more "anti-Catholic bigotry" than calling Karl Rove a vile human being is anti-American bigotry.

[virgogal]

5. The third paragraph says raping of young boys is "normal" within the Roman Catholic

Church.

I would certainly call that anti-Catholic.

[laconicsax]

18. No, it says that it's "normal" for a priest to be allowed to continue raping young boys.

Have some priests made child rape a normal part of their career?
Have said priests been allowed to continue raping children after being accused?
Has the Church hierarchy worked to maintain this as the status quo?

Since the answer to all three questions is yes, I would say that it's normal for rapists to enjoy a long career in the priesthood.

[Deep13]

19. If the truth is anti-Catholic then the problem is not with telling the truth.

Don't blame the messanger. Besides, as a non-Catholic, I am under no duty to pretend the R.C. Church is better than it is. Those who insist I do are religious bigots who seek to impose their religious rules on the rest of us.

[sabrina 1]

6. And that statement is a smear. Where is ther even a

shred of evidence to post such a lie about anyone? I remember we used to criticize this kind of yellow journalism when the right did it.

'Is John Kerry a traitor'? or 'Some people say ... ' etc. So now, the left is engaged in what it used to denounce? If you have some evidence that this individual has done what is implied in this article, post it. Otherwise the whole article is nothing but a hateful attack on someone who clearly has a lot of hatred in their hearts.

[laconicsax]

13. Smearing an individual does not equal bigotry against a group.

"Is John Kerry a traitor?" isn't a bigoted statement even though it's based on lies. "The Pope helped cover up child rape" isn't a bigoted statement either even though it's based on fact.

There's a real inability among some people to understand that individual Catholics are not the Church hierarchy or the Pope any more than individual Americans are the Federal government or the President. When the leader of the US does something despicable, calling it such isn't a bigoted statement against all Americans. When the leader of the Catholic Church does something despicable, calling it such isn't a bigoted statement against all Catholics.

[sabrina 1]

21. I agree as far as

criticizing the leader of any organization specifically for wrongdoing not being bigotry. But I have certainly seen a lot of bigotry on this board. When you associate anyone who remains in the Church with the actions of the relative few who have done wrong, and you demand that they either leave that church or be tarred with the same brush, that is bigotry.

In this case, the article is making a false accusation against the pope. Had the article stated that there is evidence that the pope covered up crimes by other priests, that would be accurate reporting of the news. Instead it accuses the pope himself of being a pedophile. That is a lie. Why would some one lie about the leader of an organization? And such a vile lie as this?

To make such a false and vile accusation against anyone, you have to be filled with hatred yourself. That the hatred is directed at a person who represents an entire religion, definitely raises the question of bigotry in the case of this author.

[laconicsax]

28. By donating money, they associate themselves.

By remaining steadfast and standing by a corrupt leadership that has demonstrably harbored and shielded rapists, they associate themselves.

By refusing to denounce said leadership, they associate themselves.

If you went to a political rally, listened to a racist speech, decided to stick around, not say anything, and attend the next one too, you will have associated yourself with a racist. If you left and didn't come back, you will have disassociated yourself.

Either way, the accusation of pedophilia on the part of the Pope is a provocative headline that is immediately followed by, 'If he is, there's no evidence to prove it.'

Is that a dishonest way of accusing the Pope of being a pedophile without actually making the accusation? Yes. Is it bigotry? No.

[sabrina 1]

33. There you go. I knew it would not be long

before someone spared me the trouble of providing proof of bigotry against Catholics. Thanks, I was about to go searching, I will simply point to your post now.??

Oh, and please provide a link to an event where Catholics attended a rally, listened to a speech that promoted pedophilia, decided to stick around, did not say anything and attended the next one too?' I'll be waiting.

As for you apologetics for yellow journalism, don't bother. The idea has been planted, that is the purpose of Rovian journalism. And it was aimed at someone who symboliizes an entire religion. I will not allow people off the hook for this, anymore than I ever allowed Freepers to try to wiggle off the same hook when they singled out Muslim Clerics and made similar accusations and then tried to claim it was not bigotry. It would be dishonest of me to have gone after them for their bigotry using the exact same tactics, and ignore it here because it is a leftie doing it.

[laconicsax]

36. Do you understand what an analogy is?

The line about a rally is known as an analogy.

The Church hierarchy has supported pedophilia and child rape by actively covering it up and shielding the perpetrators from justice. This is not in dispute. When someone gives money to an organization they are supporting its goals. Consequently, when someone donates money to the Church, even at the parish level, they are supporting the Vatican. If you have a problem with an organization that actively covers up child rape and shields the perpetrators from justice, then don't associate with it.

No one forces people (adults anyway) from associating with the Church and donating money to it. Doing so is a conscious choice and it should stand to reason that if someone had a problem with what the Church hierarchy does, they'd do something about it other than go to church and donate money.

You're trying to make this big point about bigotry while ignoring the fact that the Catholic Church has provided support to rapists and protected them from public and legal scrutiny. People who freely associating with this organization are expressing their support for its actions. You can't weasel your way around that no matter how many times you try to compare it to anti-Muslim freepers.

Are you Catholic? If so, do you go to church? Have you donated money since this scandal first broke years ago? If so, why do you do so if you don't support the Vatican's pro-rapist agenda?

[sabrina 1]

42. That is the exact same argumenat freepers made

about Muslims. Not satisfied when prominent Muslims denounced terrorism, they were told they needed to leave their religion behind and anyone of them who donated to a Muslim charity was promoting terrorism.

And you lie about me also. I am commenting on an OP that is a lie. You claim I have ignored the crimes the Catholic Church hierarchy have been accused of. Where did you come up with that? I am commenting on a lie in an OP, that is the subject here. You have a habit of inventing 'facts' that's for sure.

But again, this is what was done to Muslims by Freepers. If they didn't include in every conversation no matter that it was unrelated to that conversation, a denouncement of terrorism, they were 'ignoring it' or 'supporting it'.

YOU are the one who cannot wiggle out of what you are engaged in. Your bigotry (bigotry = ignorance) is the mirror image of what I saw on Freeper boards against Muslims. I don't much care if you don't like the comparison, I call it as I see it.

Btw, regarding your last sentence, I have already made my beliefs public, for years actually, not that it's any of your business. But what are YOU? Who do YOU donate to, what are YOUR religious beliefs? They better coincide with what I believe in, otherwise you will be subjected to very harsh judgement from me! :eyes:

Do you see what you are doing? No, I guess you probably don't. Neither did they and no amount of arguments trying to show them what they were doing, ever worked.

[laconicsax]

45. I've done no such thing.

For starters, there's a difference between the ignorant ramblings of Freepers who think that Islam is synonymous with terrorism and people like me who think that the Vatican is complicit in child rape. That difference is one of fact. Islam, as a religion is not synonymous with terrorism, as terrorism isn't one of its precepts. The Vatican IS complicit in child rape. It's documented and has been known for a very long time. I understand the difference, do you?

Again and again, you go to this false comparison. Perhaps because you don't understand the issue. Perhaps because, despite what you have previously indicated, you don't understand that criticizing an individual is different from criticizing a group. Perhaps because you can't stand the idea that you may be defending child rapists and seek to deflect attention away from yourself. I don't know why you keep it up, but then again, maybe you don't either.

Would you care to denounce the Pope and Catholic hierarchy for their role in allowing known rapists to continue? I imagine that you would, but might not do so because if you did, you'd be engaging in what you consider to be anti-Catholic bigotry. As for you ignoring it, I apologize if that's a mis-characterization. I made the foolish choice of reading your attempts to bend over backwards to distract from the severity of the crimes at hand as a conscious attempt to dismiss them.

I don't troll DU to learn various people's religious beliefs and even if I did, I wouldn't trust myself to remember the details for everyone. That's why I prefer to ask directly. Since you asked me directly, sincere or not, I have no religious beliefs. I donate to humanitarian organizations when able and refuse to donate to organizations that engage in activities I consider to be wrong.

[sabrina 1]

46. There is so much

wrong in your post I don't know where to start. What I objected to in this OP was the Rovian tactic of asking a question which contains a false accusation. I don't care who it is aimed at, do YOU understand that? What you have done is to defend this kind of journalism and confuse facts with the fiction posted in that article.

As for this:

For starters, there's a difference between the ignorant ramblings of Freepers who think that Islam is synonymous with terrorism and people like me who think that the Vatican is complicit in child rape. That difference is one of fact. Islam, as a religion is not synonymous with terrorism, as terrorism isn't one of its precepts.

First of all, do you know how many people are part of 'The Vatican'? The Vatican is not just one person, or two or three. But you say you are not doing what Freepers do, yet, assuming that I might be a Catholic, you go on to accuse me of being complicit in child rape IF I continue to donate to a parish I belong to. Just as you have accused the thousands of people who are a part of the Vatican of being complicit in child rape. Then you say 'Islam is not synonymous with terrorism' ~ I agree and certainly have said so many times. I have no doubt that many Muslims donate to Muslim charities and continue to attend their religious ceremonies, even though many of their clerics are involved in radical fundamentalism. Still, you rightly do not accuse them of being 'synonymous with terrorism'.

But, you have a different standard for Catholics. They, according to you, if they continue to donate to Catholic charities and continue to practice their religion, ARE synonymous with child rape. Do you see how inconsistent you are? And how similar your anti-Catholicism is to their anti-Islam is? Iow, they are selective, as you are only in reverse. To me, the same rules apply to both.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you agree with the Freepers that individual Muslims are complicit with what their leaders do, or individaul Catholics, like Muslims, are not.

Maybe you don't realize what you are doing, but in every statement you make, there is a series of baseless accusations, much like the OP. For instance:

Would you care to denounce the Pope and Catholic hierarchy for their role in allowing known rapists to continue? I imagine that you would, but might not do so because if you did, you'd be engaging in what you consider to be anti-Catholic bigotry. As for you ignoring it, I apologize if that's a mis-characterization. I made the foolish choice of reading your attempts to bend over backwards to distract from the severity of the crimes at hand as a conscious attempt to dismiss them.

Filled with assumptions. Anyone who knows me, knows, I will not hesitate to speak out about anything that is clearly wrong. You imply, falsely, that I would refrain from condemning child rape for fear of being seen as 'anti-Catholic'. What do these two things have to do with each other? Your very question accuses all Catholics of being complicit in child rape. You assum that if someone objects to a lie, they must be complicit in some crime.

So, let me clarify. Child rape is a crime, no matter who does it. A priest guilty of such a crime deserves to be treated as a criminal and many have been. Anyone who encourages or hides such crimes should be treated the same way. Child rapists come in all forms, some are Catholic priests, some are Muslims, some are Athiests etc. Religion has little to do with this crime.

What I object to, once again because you still have avoided the real issue with this OP and wandered off into a whole other topic, was the use of Rovian tactics to accuse someone who is symbolic of a particular religion, of a crime he did not commit. This false accusation doesn't seem to trouble you at all. In that, you remind me of Freepers. They were never troubled by false accusations thrown in with what might be facts against Muslims, because they hated Muslims. Not satisfied with the actual crimes committed by radical Muslims, they wanted to include every crime they could think of.

A lie is a lie. And it is best to stay with the facts that are known. Iow, outrageous thought that it is, stick with the truth.

Oh, and I was often accused of being a Muslim also when I objected to similar tactics designed to induce even more anger than the crimes already known might induce. It seems to be inconceivable that someone just might care about facts, regardless of who the targets of the lies are.

[laconicsax]

63. I'm glad you oppose child rape.

Now repeat after me:

Pope Benedict XVI and the Church hierarchy should be treated as criminals for their role in encouraging child rape, covering up its instances, and protecting the perpetrators.

This subthread between us goes like this:
-Pnwmom says the OP is anti-Catholic bigotry.
-I say it isn't.
-You say it is.
-I explain why it isn't.
-You agree it isn't, but it's still yellow journalism.
-I explain part of my previous post and agree that it's yellow journalism.
-You say it's anti-Catholic bigotry.
-I again explain how it isn't.
-You say that it's bigotry and yellow journalism.
-I explain why your comparisons are false--that it isn't bigotry.
-You accuse me of changing the subject from yellow journalism.

You see, the wonderful thing about discussion forums is that anyone reading can review exactly what was posted and in response to what. You introduced your objection to the underhanded tactics of the author after conceding that your original charge of bigotry was in error. If you re-read my posts, you'll see that I have referred to these Rovian tactics as "dishonest" and "underhanded."

That's hardly a show of support. Maybe I should state very clearly that I find the author's use of Glenn Beck style provocation to be slimy, dishonest, underhanded, and just plain wrong. Does that clear up your misunderstanding? Can we now return to the original point seeing how we are in agreement on your side issue?

I don't know where you get my assuming that you're Catholic, especially since I never did. I even prefaced the questions dependent on your being Catholic with, "Are you Catholic? If so..." Maybe it's because I said "denounce the Pope" and you thought I meant "renounce Catholicism." Who knows? I'm clearly not doing a great job of conveying my meaning. Still, since you keep bringing up the point after conceding it, there is a difference between an institution and a religion.

Oh, and I don't know you. As far as I can recall, this is the first interaction I've had with you on this board. Spare me the "my friends think I'm swell" diatribe. It reminds me of racists who use the "I have black friends" line in a desperate attempt to avoid being labeled as racist. If you are as you say that other people say you are, then you shouldn't need to rely on unverifiable references to demonstrate it.

A religion may have an organized institution, but they are not one and the same. Catholicism in itself does not promote child rape. The Vatican (the head institution of Catholicism) does promote child rape. Supporting that institution makes one complicit in the crime just as supporting the Klan makes one complicit in its crimes.

I have yet to hear a good reason to support an organization that has openly dedicated itself to the cover-up and perpetuation of child rape.

[sabrina 1]

78. You're right, you're not doing a very good job of

expressing yourself. You seem to have a problem with comprehension, for one thing. What I conceded was that attacking the leader of an organization alone, without holding all members of that organization responsible for his actions, was not bigotry. I hope you got that before I get to what you are confused about.

Separate from that, I stated that there was definitely anti-Catholic bigotry ON THIS BOARD. Those are two separate issues.

The anti-Catholic bigots jump on every thread, such as this, started with an erroneous charge, with glee. So they're not hard to spot. Just as anti-Muslim Freepers, seeing a similar false charge framed as a question about any prominent Muslim, jump in with the same amount of glee.

The problem you are having with your communications skills is that you break a cardinal rule of debate. You get personal and since, as YOU conceded, you don't know me, your assumptions, which are not at all relevant to the discussion, about me, were false. That lost you credibility. Sorry to have pointed out your mistakes.

The rest of your post, except where you concede the point I made, that members of an organization are not guilty of crimes committed by its leaders, continues to accuse members 'of supporting rape' if they support the Vatican. The Vatican and the individuals that occupy it, are two separate entities. Just as the WH and the individuals that occupy it, are two separate entities.

Did you, eg, continue to pay taxes when Bush was president? Those taxes helped fund his murderous wars and the rape and torture of untold numbers of Muslims. Now, you will most likely claim that you 'had no choice' as you would go to jail if you refused to pay taxes. That's not entirely true, btw, but even if you did, if you know for a fact that your money is funding rape and torture and slaughter of innocent people, by your own standards, you should have been willing to go to jail, or do whatever it took to stop the crimes.

Since you have a problem with comprehension, to clarify my paragraph above, that is YOUR logic, not mine. I believe that staying in the country and throwing out of office those who committed those crimes, is more effective than going to jail. I believe the same thing applies to Catholics and Muslims and Jews and everyone else who belong to organizations whose leaders are guilty of crimes.

You assumed also that someone who points out a problem with an article like this one, must have an ulterior motive, it just couldn't be that they object to Rovian tactics. I am however glad that you conceded what was the main point of this discussion, that this article is a disgrace.

[laconicsax]

89. Tithes are entirely voluntary, taxes are not.

But to answer your question, I didn't pay federal income tax for much of *'s reign. You see, there's a filing threshold that I failed to meet for many years and that exempted me. When I did have to file, I elected to obey the law rather than face a fine and/or jail sentence.

Tithes are entirely voluntary. When a parishioner puts money in the plate, they are doing so entirely on their own accord. There is no requirement that they do so and no penalty if they don't. Thanks for the false comparison though. I've noticed that many people on this board don't seem to understand the difference between voluntary and mandatory as they make the exact same false comparison (tithe=tax).

My argument is that if one tithes (i.e. voluntary contribution), they are supporting the organization. If they do not wish to support the organization through voluntary contributions, then they can elect to stop tithing. Since there is no requirement that they tithe, it must be done out of a desire to support the organization. Parishioners can stop tithing any time they want. They can also stop attending mass whenever they wish. You see, both are voluntary activities that indicate, at worst, support of child rape and at best, indifference to it.

Some Catholics take a third option of continuing to attend mass but refusing to tithe in protest and speaking out on the crimes of their leaders.

BTW, as I have said previously, I didn't make assumptions about you and demonstrated why your claim is false. That you continue to insist that I did, based on nothing at all, shows an unwillingness to admit when you're wrong (i.e. an unwillingness to engage in debate). Since you aren't interested in debate, I'll consider this discussion between us ended.

Good day.

[humblebum]

53. It is quite well documented that atheists and atheistic regimes are responsible

for the largest mass killings in human history. So then, would it be considered bigotry if I posed a question about a prominent American atheist possibly having the same potential to sanction or commit such acts? And if one donates to an atheist organization, is that person enabling such behavior? I think the answer is fairly obvious.

[Goblinmonger]

55. That meme gets old

Hitler was a Catholic. Stalin was an Eastern Orthodox. That leaves Pol Pot in the little trinity that is held up so high by you apologists. Add in the Inquisitions, pogroms, witch hunts, and crusades of the Catholic church and the other wars fought in the name of religion and you lose. Sorry.

[darkstar3]

57. Stalin again, huh?

Some people apparently just don't get the fact that communism =/= atheism...

And apparently from your post, Mr. "ignored" can't do MATH either..."Atheism is responsible for more death than religion, so hah!!!" Right...so I'm supposed to believe that anything on this planet beats out 20 centuries of systematic out-group destruction. :crazy:

How many times can anyone ride that one-trick-pony before we put it out to pasture?

[Goblinmonger]

58. Ignored didn't name names, just the blanket statement you accurately predicted

I just cut to the chase for him. But what do we know, we're just dirty evil atheists.

[darkstar3]

60. You forgot mass-murdering,

baby-eating, meeting-going, agenda-driven destroyers of all that is good and moral in this world...

I swear, sometimes it makes me think that these accusers are nothing more than simian, knuckle-draggin' mother-lovin', cousin-fuckin', pick-up liftin', parent's-basement-postin' rejects from society who simply need to bring the rest of us down with them...

Not to put too fine a point on it, of course...

[uberllama42]

61. You must see the difference

between a secular group that has nothing to do with the Soviet Union on the one hand and a Catholic parish on the other.

If I gave a donation to the Secular Student Alliance, I would not remotely be worried that my money might support the Communist Party of China or the Red Army. Merely because two organizations promote the belief that God doesn't exist doesn't mean that their activities are somehow related. The atrocities committed under Mao occurred before the SSA was formed, and the same is likely true for almost any other atheist group in the United States.

If I was considering a donation to a Catholic parish here in Philadelphia, I would worry that some of my money would go to the Archdiocese, which, it has been well documented, covered up dozens of alleged rapes over the course of decades. A parish is directly under the authority of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Donations to the parish support the Archdiocese, and the Archdiocese disburses funds to its constituent parishes on a regular basis. The Archdiocese has the authority to merge, divide or disband parishes under its control. If a priest in one parish was accused of pederasty, he could--at least in the recent past if not today--expect that the Archdiocese would reassign him to another parish so as to circumvent prosecution by secular authorities.

Do you understand the relationship between individual Catholic parishes and the hierarchy of the church? This is quite different from the way secular groups work. There is no necessary relationship between two non-religious groups, even if they both openly promote a lack of religious belief. For that matter, there is not necessarily any relationship between two Muslim groups (to use and example that's been brought up), since Islam is not organized under a central authority.

[humblebum]

71. "a secular group that has nothing to do with the Soviet Union"?

That "secular group that had nothing to do with the Soviet Union" counted among its members the Supreme Soviet and they actively promoted atheism in all levels of society and made it a top priority. Their philosophies about organized atheism were developed in some of the same circles and by some of the same people who are often quoted and referred to by atheists today, ie. B. Russell, the Paris Commune, the Vienna Circle. Russell wrote to Lenin that "Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind." The link between organized atheism and Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. is undeniable. It has a history just as religion has a history and it is considered by many as a religion without a god.

[uberllama42]

85. I honestly have no clue what you're talking about

Was this meant to be a reply to someone else? Your post is such a non sequitur that I honestly wonder.

What group are you talking about? You haven't named any particular atheist group yet. You seem to have in mind a specific group that hasn't previously entered into this conversation, but you haven't specified what that group is.

This is the group I mentioned:

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

Note that it was founded less than ten years ago. It has nothing to do with the Communist Parties of China or the Soviet Union. I know that both of those parties are/were avowedly atheist, and I never denied it. But to say that a bunch of middle class, white liberal college kids have a material connection to the Red Army is preposterous.

I have already explained the intimate connection between a Catholic parish and the very same body--the Archdiocese of Philadelphia--that covered up numerous cases of child rape in the very city that I live in within the last fifty years. If you can't see the difference between these two situations, I don't know what else I'm going to be able to say to you.

[humblebum]

93. It appeared to me that the secular group you were speaking of was atheism, but

that aside, you display little knowledge of the development of atheism and atheist groups in the Soviet Union. There is a strong philosophic link between certain groups then and now. Just because there is no single central authority does not mean that a linkage doesn't exist. Muslim groups (Sunni), for instance, differ somewhat in the "schools" of religious thought. There are 4 main ones. But they are most certainly linked by the Quran.

[pnwmom]

11. This is a general statement:

"his predatory employees, most of whom feel that free sexual access to children is an entitlement or at least a long established perk of the Roman Catholic priesthood,"

[sabrina 1]

4. Yes, it the only kind of bigotry

that appears to be acceptable here.

I remember fighting these exact same kind of bigoted posts regarding Muslims, just substitute the word 'Catholic' and 'Pope' for 'Muslims' and 'Allah' and most of the left, to their credit, denounced the obvious bigotry of the right.

The all out assault on Muslims and their faith, because of the actions of a few, was never tolerated on any progressive board that I remember.

There are one billion Muslims in the world, among them some pretty bad people, but the propaganda from the right was intended to tar all of those people with the same brush.

But at least there were good people denouncing the bigotry.

Catholics are fair game on this board, it seems and this kind of post, a vicious claim no matter who it might be aimed at, with no basis in fact, is exactly what I saw on rightwing boards, implying that all Muslim clerics were pedophiles, I'm sure people remember, without a shred of evidence. The problem is that this kind of lie will undermine any attempt to deal with the real problems as people turn away in disgust.

[laconicsax]

14. There's no broad brush.

If I were to say, "the Pope is a pedophile," I would be making a statement about an individual.
If I were to say, "all Catholics are pedophiles," I would be making a broad brush attack.

[sabrina 1]

27. If you were to say that anyone was a pedophile

without a shred of evidence for saying so, you would be lying. And that is what this article has done.

When Freepers called Muslim clerics 'pedophiles' which they did, just as this article has done, without a shred of evidence, they were attacking the Muslim religion. That was their intent.

Here on this board, I have seen people accuse Catholics of being complicit in child abuse because they are still Catholics. There is definitely an anti Catholic bigotry on this board among some members. Just as there was an anti Muslim bigotry on Free Republic among most of its members. Although every once in a while I did see an occasional freeper try to point out that not all Muslims should be painted with such a broad brush to be fair.

But this OP has lied ~ do you support that? If so, would you support it if was against someone you respected, like Obama eg? You certainly have not condemned the posting of such a vile lie so I am assuming it's okay because it is the Catholic Pope. But if I'm wrong, I will certainly apologize for that assumption.

I would be opposing the lie no matter who it was aimed at, which is why I'm surprised to see so little 'fact-checking' going on in this case.

[laconicsax]

31. Lying is not bigotry.

You keep throwing up these little red herrings. Just admit that the OP is not anti-Catholic bigotry and move on. You eluded to the first part by recognizing that smearing an individual does not equal bigotry against a group.

Moving the goalposts to keep from admitting that you were wrong doesn't help your case.

As for Catholics being complicit, no one is forcing them to go to church or donate money. They are voluntarily supporting a corrupt institution that has dedicated itself to the concealment of child rape.

[Deep13]

23. "The all out assault on Muslims and their faith...."

Once again, no one is "assaulting" Catholics. The OP is criticizing ONE Catholic and the governance of that church. When we were critical of Bush, does that mean we hated all Americans? No. As far as criticisms of Islam or Catholicism as ideas, they are as fair as any criticisms of any ideas. You assume that religion is off limits for criticism, but neither you nor anyone else has ever given a real reason for that. As a nonreligious person, I have no duty to accept the validity of any religious claim without sufficient evidence. The fact that you bristle at the idea tells me that on some level you don't really believe in Catholicism either.

Catholics =/= Catholicism

[ironbark]

67. Thanks for your post/s and your stance against blatant bigotry.

“I remember fighting these exact same kind of bigoted posts regarding Muslims, just substitute the word 'Catholic' and 'Pope' for 'Muslims' and 'Allah' and most of the left, to their credit, denounced the obvious bigotry of the right.”

Your fight must have been before my time here. Sadly all I have seen is “bigoted posts regarding Muslims” and religion in general and little or no defence.
I’m an agnostic who has had a longstanding interest in Islam, its civilization, contribution to art, music, science, architecture and influence on the West. This interest had me deemed as a Muslim from the outset on this board and every overture to discuss anything positive about Islam was met with hostility and contempt. Islam was a source of terrorism and a promulgator of female genital mutilation…full stop…no further interest or discussion.
As you clearly identify…it is little or no different regarding Catholicism, Christianity or religion in general.

“…with no basis in fact, is exactly what I saw on rightwing boards,…”

Facts appear to be those things that just get in the way of an innuendo laden bigoted narrative.
I’m afraid you would struggle to convince me that this board is other than what you describe.

“The problem is that this kind of lie will undermine any attempt to deal with the real problems as people turn away in disgust.”

As far as I can see it just causes any alternative/progressive voice to turn away from the board in disgust.

[sabrina 1]

82. You're welcome.

I was referring to rightwing boards regarding the bigotry against Muslims btw. That was several years ago, and trust me, standing up against it was likely to get you threatened with being turned in to Homeland Security at that time.

Back then, I took comfort in believing that I belonged to a party that would never tolerate bigotry of any kind. That they were smarter than Republicans and understood that bad people are found everywhere, in every organization. I came here in 2004 (different handle) and didn't see what I had seen on RW boards back then. I was away for a while, so I probably missed the anti-Muslim bigotry that may have come later. I believe the rightwing of the Dem. Party the DLC is responsible for the swing to the right and adaptation of freeper like tactics. I could be wrong of course, but bigotry is ugly, no matter who it is aimed at and I will always at least comment on it when I see it.

Thank you for your own stance against it. You are right, I am sure many people, particularly Muslims and Catholics would be very turned off by what they would see here. If it becomes more prevalent, I wouldn't waste time here either. The reason I am a Democrat is because this kind of bigotry belongs on the right, or so I thought.

[movonne]

8. You mean that all this stuff should be covered up or otherwise it is called

catholic bigotry??? is that what you mean...

[sabrina 1]

15. Did you read the article?

Did you read my posts or is this just another knee-jerk reaction from someone with an agenda?

That article implies that the pope IS a pedophile, not that he is covering up or other pedophiles. Now, if you can provide some evidence that this is true, or that there has been anything other than this Rovian whisper campaign to go by, then please provide it.

I like to base my opinions on facts, not on yellow journalism whisper campaigns based on hatred. Hate never brought about justice.

What this kind of false claim will do, is to diminish the actual crimes that were committed, by providing real ammunition to anyone who is not interested in the truth. Now people can say 'see, these people are freepers, they just make stuff up. Nothing they say can be believed' and everyone will be lumped into the same group even those with legitimate claims.

If you cannot see the harm of this kind of 'journalism' in terms of getting to the truth, then there's more to say to you.

[Deep13]

25. How is the supposed defamation of one guy anti-Catholic (noun)? nt

[sabrina 1]

30. Well at least you admitted it was defamation.

That's progress ~

As for the rest of your question, if it was aimed only at 'one guy' it would still be wrong, but most likely limited to that individual.

The Pope represents Catholics in the eyes of the world. He is the symbol to many people of the Catholic faith.

If I were to falsely accuse a respected Rabbi of a similar vile and visious act, but I would just be 'attacking one guy' or would there be cries of 'anti-semitism'? Imo, there should be as the Rabbi represents more than just himself. And as I objected to similar charges made against Muslim Clerics for the same reason.

There is bigotry against Catholics on this board. I suppose I could go searching for the posts, but it's really not that important to prove it as I've seen it myself and I'm satisfied with the conclusions I've reached.

If otoh, the OP had posted some evidence or some other facts, such as 'the Pope covered up for a pedophile priest' with a link to a reliable source, that would simply be news.

[Deep13]

37. "supposed defamation" It was a hypothetical question.

Learning the truth would be progress. Saying that it is wrong to question those in authority is never progress. And it's only defamation if there is factual basis for it. See New York Times v. Sullivan. Even if it turns out to be wrong, it is only defamation if there is "actual malice."

"The Pope represents Catholics in the eyes of the world. He is the symbol to many people of the Catholic faith."

As someone not of the Catholic faith, he's just one guy. You may acquiess to his self-agrandizement, but you have no right to insist others do so. Whatever he purports to represent, he is still just one guy.

Yes, it is wrong if it is a false accusation. But it would not be an unfair attack on Catholics generally. And it would actually have to be false. Maybe it is, but given what has been going on, one has to wonder about the motives for complicity in such a horrible and widespread crime. In short, methinks he doth protest too much.

"There is bigotry against Catholics on this board."

I dispute that. Pointing out actual wrongful and even criminal acts that Catholics support with their loyalty and their tithes is simply telling the truth. The R.C. Church is not only guilty of institutional child rape (which we have no reason to think is a recent development) but its policies around the world increase ignorance, oppression, povery and suffering. If pointing that out seems wrong to you, then maybe you ought to reexamine where your loyalties lies. When someone makes an observation or asks about a proposed fact, the proper response is to ask "is it true?" rather than trying to change the subject and blame the messanger.

[sabrina 1]

43. Accusing people falsely is defamation no matter how you

try to spin it. This article made a false statement, then tried to cover itself by admitting it. Rove would be proud.

Sorry you don't see the bigotry. But your own words as to why you dispute, prove my point 'Pointing out that actual wrongful and even criminal acts that Catholics support etc. etc.'

I really must thank you for being exhibit #1 of what I meant by my comparison to Freepers. I have asked for proof now of several allegations made on this board, but have received nothing but weasel words attempting to wriggle out of it.

Now, I'll try again. Show me one instance of a Catholic 'supporting pedophelia', a link.

The proper response to a smear is to condemn it. Even if it against someone you oppose. It is called 'ethics'. I see your idea of ethics is to assume something is true if it is about someone you dislike, and assume it is not, if it is about someone you like. How convenient to be able to manipulate your moral compass that way.

Btw, now that I'm getting bored with this conversation as you've provided me with all the proof I needed for my observation of the bigotry that exists on this board, I don't like this Pope, never did. So much for your assumptions.

I never went along with the 'George Bush is a pedophile' garbage either. There was enough to condemn him with without making stuff up and losing all credibility, as this OP has done to neutral observers. The truth never changes, which is why I prefer it. It is not confusing.
'

[olegramps]

65. The Pope is not just another average Catholic.

If you believe in the dogma of church, then you accept that the pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Supreme Pontiff, who has the power to speak in Jesus' name and can declare teachings to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals. He must act as Jesus would have acted since he is his earthly representative. We are well aware of what Jesus taught in regard to anyone who would abuse or scandalize a child. It would have been better that the were never born and a mill stone tied about their neck and cast into the depths of the sea.

It is clear that Ratzinger and his fellow bishops in their vain attempt to protect the image of the church have enabled priests to commit atrocious abuse of children and adolescents. Does that make Ratzinger a pedophile, no, it makes him something even worse in that he has totally failed to faithfully represent Jesus who he claims he represents.

Personally I don't see why many Catholics continue to attend church.
Studies reveal that the vast majority don't believe in the church's teaching on contraception, premarital sex, virgin conception and even a significant percentage disagree in regard to abortion. It would seem to me that they would seek out a church in which they were in agreement with its teachings. As for the abuse of children I can't totally absolve the parents in that it appears that they were far too trusting and in some cases even refused to believe the abuse was happening when confronted with the facts. A parents primary duty is the protection of their children.

[Deep13]

73. They support the institution with their tithes. I already said that.

Unless you are disputing that church funds come from their parishoners. That institution enables priests who rape children to continue to rape children and to shield them from justice.

I wasn't suggesting Bush was a pedophile. You are deliberately confusing the issue. My point is that just because a leader does something wrong does not mean every one of his constitutents is guilty of it. Ergo, ridiculing Bush is not the same as ridiculing Americans generally. Likewise with the Pope and Catholics. We are all responsible for what we do.

This isn't a smear. Saying Obama is a Nazi is a smear because it has not basis in fact. OTOH, the practice of tolerating and even enabling child rape by Catholic clergy is a well-established fact. Since Ratzinger has been implicated in this cover-up, it is not unreasonable to wonder aloud what just how far into this he is. It is only the faith of his followers that assumes that he MUST be innocent because he's the pope. Well, I don't buy that and am not required to do so. Again, the real question here is to ask "is it true." I'm not assuming it is, but as they say, where there's smoke, there's fire. I still can't understand why you are so desperate to protect this overrated individual.

Defamation is a specific legal cause of action that includes the Common Law concepts of libel and slander. For a public figure to demonstrate defamation, he or she must show "actual malice" and actual damages resulting from it. "Actual malice" means that the publisher of the allegedly libelous material KNOWS there is no basis in fact for the statements. BTW, a question cannot be defamation because it makes no statement. This is why Fox etc. can get away with asking things like, "Does Obama support terrorism?"

[sabrina 1]

80. And Americans supported Bush's torture and rape

and slaughter of Iraqis and Afghans and others with their taxes, by YOUR logic. On the one hand you admit to the Rovian tactics in the OP. But you want it both ways 'it is not unreasanable to wonder aloud what just how far into this he is'. Yes it is unreasonable when there is not a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Allegations have been made that he was involved in a cover-up of pedophile priests. As you say, to protect the institution. Many members of our leadership have been involved in a similar cover-up, by refusing to hold war criminals accountable. When do we start refusing to continue to fund them? By YOUR logic, we should ignore the fact that our taxes, while they are funding these crimes, also fund programs for the poor etc.

You are demanding of others, what you are unprepared to do yourself. And I agree with those who say it would do no good to withhold taxes, it would in fact, hurt many people. The same goes for an organization like the Catholic Church, or the Muslim community since much of the donations to both organizations go to help others, the poor, for education, for the sick, the homeless. So, people make a difficult choice in these instances but most agree that removing leaders who are guilty of crimes is imperative.

So far, we have not succeeded in doing that in a country whose population is probably smaller than the membership of the Catholic Church. The rapists and torturers are still free, and unlike the Catholic priests and their victims, the criminals here have been told they will not be prosecuted, and the victims have been continually denied the right to at least sue and get some kind of justice, by our very own DOJ.

These things are complex. Bigots of course think only in black and white. And that is why I said there is anti-Catholic bigotry on this board. Those unrealistic demands made on members of one organization, while not made on others for far worse crimes, shows the bigotry and hypocrisy of the demands.

[darkstar3]

81. How many times do you have to be told

that tithes are completely voluntary while taxes are compulsory before you drop that red herring?

[sabrina 1]

83. I know people who withhold their taxes because of their

beliefs. And who are not in prison after years of doing so. There are legal ways to do so. But clearly you just want to spout off about one organization and demand of its members, what you are unwilling to do yourself.

It is not easy to legally withhold taxes, it costs money for lawyers etc. But, if you are so outraged over abuse of children in the Catholic Church that you go so far as to accuse anyone contributing funds to their parishes, then you must surely be even more outraged at the sodomy and rape of women and children which your tax dollars supports, and at least be as willing to take the trouble NOT to fund it, as you demand of others.

Until you do that, your demands are hypocritical. Maybe you should read my post again, it actually gives you an out. Consistency is important when we make demands of others.

[darkstar3]

84. Those lawyers haven't actually managed to get people off the hook for paying their taxes yet.

I've actually looked into this, and what I found is that all the case law is still up in the air. The lawyers involved on both sides of this debate are working hard to ensure that their side wins, and if/when the IRS wins out in a federal court, all of these people who haven't been paying their taxes due to various ridiculous claims will be paid a visit by white men in black suits demanding money or assets.

There is, at this time, no legal way to avoid paying taxes on income that you earn in the US. (That is unless something has changed recently and I haven't heard about it yet.) There is, however, an easy way to ensure that money you voluntarily part with doesn't go to protect child rapists. Ergo, your argument of hypocrisy is still nothing more than a red herring.

[sabrina 1]

88. Sorry, but there are ways. Those people are open about

not paying taxes, there are others who seem are not on the radar screen. And as I said, no one is in jail yet and probably won't be as long it stays unresolved, they are not going to jail.

But you could always work off the books as lots of people do, there are many ways to stop funding the war machine. Of course I am not the one suggesting that people stop donating money to organizations like the gov. or churches. Both orgs do a lot with that money, so many innocent people would suffer if the donations were to stop. I'm just pointing out that if this is your solution for other people, you better be following your own advice or you become a hypocrite.

[darkstar3]

91. Prove it.

Show me people who are legally not paying their taxes.

[laconicsax]

94. *crickets*

[sabrina 1]

97. Sorry I have a life and don't always have time to check

all responses to my comments.

Anyhow, there are many ways to resist paying taxes, you could research it yourself. It is not easy, but then if someone believes firmly that donating money to an organization that is going to use it to engage in criminal activities, like an illegal war, torture etc, they would find a way.

Here's one guy who is doing it his way for example and he is not in jail. He apparently didn't want to keep funding the government, starting around 2003, which corresponds with the beginning of the Iraq War, although I'm not sure that was his reason. He worked on it, and so far appears not to be supporting the war machine with his taxes. So, it can be done, without gong to jail.

http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=howto

[darkstar3]

100. 2 problems:

1. I'm not the one claiming that citizens of the US can legally avoid paying taxes. If you want me to believe that far-fetched claim, YOU need to provide sources instead of telling me "well look it up yourself", because if you can't provide sources for that argument then it really doesn't have much weight.
2. Not going to jail is not the same thing as being legal. I know many people who smoke pot and don't go to jail. They are still breaking the law, but as of this moment it is not worth it for law enforcement officials to go after them.

[iris27]

96. Working off the books is an entirely IL-legal way to avoid taxes.

The only legal way to avoid federal taxes is to live within an income small enough to be completely covered by the standard deduction, and never purchase gasoline or cigarettes. Actually, even then, you're likely still funding the war machine if you work on the books, since FISA taxes are unavoidable for anyone working legally, and the government routinely borrows from Social Security to fund other things.

[sabrina 1]

87. I don't care whether they are voluntary or not. I just pointed out to

you that many people whose convictions are strong enough find ways to not pay taxes. And few of them are in jail. I know one of them personally, he has not paid taxes for nearly 20 years because of his opposition to U.S. foreign policy. He is NOT in jail, it has however cost him some legal fees, but then, if you truly believe in your cause, that should not be a deterrent. Torture, child and female rape, slaughter of over a million in this war, illegal confinement, the rape of a sovereign nation. As Seymor Hersch said about the raped children, he could not speak about it out loud, it was 'unspeakable' he said. Now for someone who claims that abuse of children outrages them so much, what is being done in our name, should cause such a person to at least take the advice they give to others and stop funding those crimes.

Once again, either you apply your rules to everyone, or you find another more moderate way to deal with these complex situations. Black and white thinking does not work here, sorry. It only adds fuel to the notion that when someone demands something of others that they make excuses for not doing themselves, they are hypocrites.

[iris27]

90. One big difference.

When people tell me I'm supporting an evil war machine with my tax dollars, I do not get my hackles up and demand that they stop their broadbrush attacks against all Americans just because of the actions of the taxpayer-funded government. Nor do I call them an anti-American bigot.

I say, "Yes, you're absolutely right. Here are Things X, Y, and Z (protests, campaign work, etc.) that I am doing to try to change my government's stances and future course of action."

And you know what? I *have* seen this attitude from several DU Catholics in response to these scandals. But I haven't seen it from any of those who spend so much time here engaged in bristling defense of the church hierarchy.

[sabrina 1]

92. You may say that, and so do I. But there is at least half

the population that still believes the U.S. can do not wrong, and that those we are killing, deserve it.

My point is that those who do agree we are doing wrong but then point fingers elsewhere and make demands of members of other countries or organizations that they themselves are not willing to do themselves, are hypocrites.

Eg, I naturally, in fact it should go without saying, agree that crimes have been committed by priests and that some members of the hierarchy covered them up. What I have not demanded is that members of the Church who donate money, much of which goes to help the poor, to treat the sick, towards education, must stop donating, or must renounce their religion altogether, because the black and white statement that 'funding goes to the hierarchy' is nothing more than hyperbole. It doesn't, a small amount does and since donations are down, it seems that Catholics are taking care if it themselves. But to stop all donations would affect innocent people. I am not for punishing everyone because of the crimes of a relative few.

Nor have I asked Americans to stop paying taxes, for much the same reasons. Some of those taxes do fund the war machine, but much of them go to help the poor, the disabled, schools etc. Consistency is necessary in order to retain credibility and not appear to be biased.

What I am saying is that if you demand something of one organization that you are not willing to do yourself, especially when the crimes are even more egregious in your own organization, such a person will lose credibility as they have allowed themselves to lose their sense of perspective.

[iris27]

95. And there are Catholics who think the church can do no wrong, which is why

standing up and voicing your objection is important in both cases.

I honestly don't care whether Catholics remain in the church or not. But for those who choose to stay, I just would like to see them be MORE upset with the hierarchy than they are with non-Catholics questioning their continued allegiance to the church. I would like to see them demand accountability and transparency in all child abuse cases, instead of spending their energy demanding that posters on a message board stop being such "bigots".

That disparity in reaction seems bizarre to me. I know I expend a lot more of my energy working against our nation's entrenched, 1984-esque "we have always been at war with Iraq" foreign policy than I do defending my continued status as a taxpaying American to those who are upset with our military aggression. Actually, I spend ZERO time doing the latter, which is why I am so confused by the Catholics here.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Well some guy once said 'you reap what you sew' and

the RCC has been on a nonstop promotion of bigotry campaign for years on end. Slander is what they do. So if they get what they give, they were warned about that.

[sabrina 1]

16. So in your opinion the way to solve one evil is to engage in

it yourself. Not in my opinion. All that happens when you become what you say you despise, is that most people just throw their hands up and say 'a plague on both your houses'. Otoh, if you stick to the truth and avoid acting out of revenge, some good can result and some justice can be obtained. This article will in no way help to bring about facts or justice. If anything, it will garner support for someone who will be seen as a victim of some very hateful people. If that's the result you want, then by all means support it.

[virgogal]

22. No needles and thread involved. You reap what you sow.

[Deep13]

17. How is asking if one guy is a pedophile bigotry?

Explain that please.

[laconicsax]

20. Some people have a difficult time differentiating between singular and plural.

[DeSwiss]

48. I don't know how some people sleep at night.....

...after trying to excuse the Catholic church's conspiracy to hide the raping of children behind an accusation of bigotry.

[uppityperson]

2. For each loud/homophobic voice who is closeted gay, there are many who aren't.

And if they are, the problem is still that they are bigots.

[xchrom]

7. Was JP II?

Ratzinger was put in the pope's place because he did
what JP II wanted.

And the cardinals approved of where JP II and Ratzinger
were going with regards the ped priests.

Ratzinger was and is JP II creature.

[sabrina 1]

24. Well, you've raised the question now about the last Pope

Based on what? Provide something substantial that would raise such a question about anyone or is it just your imagination you are posting? I know Freepers make stuff up about 'lefties' like this all the time, but here I thought we had higher standards although each day I am learning otherwise from some of the stuff I see posted here.

[xchrom]

32. Why? Why would the whole Vatican under JPII

Go to such lengths to hide, pay off, protect go to all
kinds of lengths to avoid the prosection and investigation of
ped priests?

The question is extreme on purpose -- but the heinous and crminal behavior
belongs to JPII (who will probably be made a saint, such a shame)
and Ratzinger and the institutions of the catholic church.

[sabrina 1]

35. You didn't answer my question.

Based on what, other than your vivid imagination have you now leveled a similar vile accusation against another Catholic Pope? And people claim there is no bigotry involved here! :eyes:

Maybe they tried to cover it up because of stuff like this. They maybe knew that people like you would go off the wall and exaggerate and accuse a lot of innocent people of the same crimes. Who knows? I do not read minds, I depend on evidence before coming to conclusions.

What you are not addressing is the lie told in this OP meant to smear someone clearly hated by the author. The article therefore has zero credibility since it is severely lacking in facts and can now be seen as prejudiced.

[olegramps]

66. Being an apologist you don't seem to be very well informed.

I will provide you with one name to research, Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legions of Christ who was protected by Pope John Paul II. He was such a bastard of bastards that he was removed by Pope Benedict as head of the Legions and ban from performing any public ministry. He didn't limit his abuse to young boys, but fathered as many as six children.

[DeSwiss]

49. The whole institution is corrupt. It has been for a very long time.

All one needs to do in order to learn about this, is read the history of the Church. It's all there in black and white. And RED.

- There are none so blind and those who will not see......

[pscot]

9. That is some mean shit

I don't care much for priests of any rank or denomination, but that comes pretty close to hate speech. No proof. Not even a rumor. Just a baseless allegation of the very nastiest kind. It's the net, so you can say anything about anybody.

[jgraz]

52. No, covering up for child rapists is some mean shit

This doesn't even come close.

[ironbark]

68. Not shit, SOAP. Standard Operating Atheist Procedure hereabouts

To falsify, make “baseless allegation”, argue from assumed psychic insight.

The Pope gets off lightly…he will never hear or know of the slander.

Those who do not join in or challenge it will know…they will be made recipients of same.

[YOY]

10. Not something to lightly accuse people of.

n/t

[Deep13]

26. Given the organization he presides over...

...it is not being lightly suggested. I rather think the Pope's commitment to this issue is of central importance and that if he is complicit in these abominable crimes then it is worth asking why.

[uberllama42]

29. The real question is: has he stopped beating his wife? n/t

[Goblinmonger]

56. The accurate question is: has he stopped covering up his employees beating their wives? n/t

[uberllama42]

62. Don't get me wrong, I think it's important to know whether the Vaticanis still covering

for child rapists. I just think this article is mean-spirited and irresponsible. And I think the headline is disingenuous.

By all means, I think the Vatican should be investigated and I think there is a decent case for Benedict XVI to be arrested for the human rights abuses that have gone on under his authority. But I don't know of the merest hint of evidence that he is himself a pedophile. Accusing him of that does nothing to bring to justice those who ought to be behind bars.

[yellowcanine]

34. This is tawdry gossip in the mask of serious discussion. It should be locked and deleted.

[Deep13]

39. Well, it got sent down the laundry chute.

How is it improper to wonder about the motives of someone who is complicit in child rape?

The fact that this may hit close to home for you should cause you to reexamine your own priorities. Frankly, if this were any other organization, it would already have been shut down by the government, had its assets seized and its accomplices indicted.

[yellowcanine]

41. You assume too much. It doesn"t "hit close to home" for me. I am not Catholic. I just don't

approve of hypothetical crimes. It is tawdry gossip in the clothing of reasoned discussion. That is my opinion. The fact that I have that opinion does not make me fair game for you to speculate about "hitting close to home". Stereotype much?

[sabrina 1]

44. Well said ~ I too have been 'speculated about'.

To some, it can never simply be about what is right. The projection tells a lot about such commenters.

[darkstar3]

59. Perhaps he does, but I think you've missed something important here.

This entire OP is about speculation, and there isn't a damned soul on this planet immune from such. To state that you can't be "fair game" for speculation is ludicrous.

As for your claim that this is tawdry gossip, well, that would make it fit right in at most after-service conversations, now wouldn't it?

[ironbark]

69. WTF? ” To state that you can't be "fair game" for speculation is ludicrous.”???

WHEN was OPEN SEASON declared???!!!

Is everyone now "fair game" for speculation”???!!!

Say whatever you like about anyone, speculate anything, everybody is “fair game”???!!!

“ludicrous” to say think or behave otherwise?

Shit.

That free for all ethical vacume pov sure explains a lot of behaviour.

[TZ]

77. I hope you aren't hinting at the atheists lack morals meme

Because, if you look farther down, you will see that I, evil immoral atheist, have nothing but disdain for the OP.

[ironbark]

99. Why would you think that my reply to 59# necessitated defence of “atheist morals”?

In the absence of any clear directive I have no option but to ‘speculate’ on the linkage.

Was it the declaration from an atheist-
” To state that you can't be "fair game" for speculation is ludicrous.” ?

That may well call one atheists morals into question….but surely not all?


Or perhaps the subsequent reference to “a lot of behaviour” rang recognition bells?-

“That free for all ethical vacume pov sure explains a lot of behaviour.”

“if you look farther down, you will see that I, evil immoral atheist, have nothing but disdain for the OP”

Good for you self identifying “evil immoral atheist” …I had not as yet ‘looked down’, I was otherwise transfixed looking up at the glories of the new morality- “…"fair game" for speculation…” ….but I shall indeed avert my gaze downwards and be doubly gratified thereby.

[darkstar3]

79. And now YOU'RE speculating

That free for all ethical vacume pov sure explains a lot of behaviour.

Nothing but pure speculation on your part, proving my point that no one is free from such speculation being directed at them.

[ironbark]

98. Quoting you directly is not “speculating”

” To state that you can't be "fair game" for speculation is ludicrous.”

That’s what you said.
A clear cut validation of "fair game" speculation backed by the assertion it is “ludicrous”
to state opposition.

You don’t even attempt to deny your "fair game" speculation policy…you just try to pretend that an OBSERVATION of verifiable ‘behaviour’ is some form of “speculation”

“That free for all ethical vacume pov sure explains a lot of behaviour.”


1/ I’m not ‘speculating’ about the “free for all ethical vacume pov” it’s right there for everyone to see-
“…that you can't be "fair game" for speculation is ludicrous”

2/ I’m not ‘speculating’ about the ‘behaviour’ it’s right there for everyone to see as well.
(Want the innumerable links? ;-)

“Nothing but pure speculation on your part…”

You have not shown, described or identified ANY kind of ‘speculation’.

You haven’t even managed to divert from the ethics free zone that is your “"fair game" for speculation” pov.

[darkstar3]

101. Wow, you're bad at this...

You do of course realize that accusing me or anyone else of being in an "ethical vacuum" (your words) is pure speculation, especially when based only on a single sentence that is absolutely true.

No one is immune from speculation. People on this planet, people on this BOARD, speculate constantly about others, and you personally are one of the bigger culprits. If you think for one moment that anyone can somehow be immune from this speculation, you are more deluded than even I suspected. If you think that recognizing that lack of immunity somehow constitutes living in an "ethics free zone", then you're just bugfuck crazy.

[ironbark]

103. Not so bad that I need to falsify/fabricate to try to score a point

“You do of course realize that accusing me or anyone else of being in an "ethical vacuum" (your words)”

LOL! Lordy you try hard but you just can’t pull this falsification business off ;-)
Lets have a look at “my words”-

“That free for all ethical vacume pov sure explains a lot of behaviour.”

Does that describe, depict or accuse >you< “being in an "ethical vacuum”?

NO.
Not at all.

It describes the POV expressed as a- “free for all ethical vacume pov”

You might be a very ethical/moral person (THAT’S >speculation< ;-) but the >pov< you have expressed is an ethics free zone- devoid of ethics.

“No one is immune from speculation. People on this planet, people on this BOARD, speculate constantly about others, and you personally are one of the bigger culprits….”

Yes, yes, yes, Darkstar….I’m a “big culprit”, I’m a naughty boy, I’m this, I’m that, I’m whatever…
Problem is that >every time< you throw out one of these assertions you >never< back it up with cite, quote, example or substantiation.
On the rare occasions you attempt to slip in a justification for your accusation it turns out (see above) to be yet another falsification/fabrication or just bulldust (like Native American society being a secular comune ;-)

“No one is immune from speculation”? That observation does not serve to grant licence to deliberately infect others/the community with “fair game” speculation.

” To state that you can't be "fair game" for speculation is ludicrous.”

That’s what you said.
A clear cut validation of "fair game" speculation backed by the assertion it is “ludicrous”
to state opposition.

“If you think for one moment that anyone can somehow be immune from this speculation,…”

Twice you play the pretence that it is about “immunity” from speculation.

No…It was, is and remains about you declaring "fair game" speculation kosher/ok/acceptable
and it being “ludicrous” to think otherwise.

The only other group that I know of that advocates "fair game" is the Scientologists.
;-)

[Deep13]

75. sorry. You're right, I assumed. nt

[Deep13]

38. Why was this moved to Storage Room B?

This is a discussion about the possible criminality of one man and his accomplices. It is NOT a discussion about religion. Whatever the faults of its leadership, I'm pretty sure the R.C. theology itself does not encourage pederasty.

[struggle4progress]

40. Kiesle was defrocked decades ago: of course, the Church should have acted more

quickly in that case, but it was still quite a few years back

[justinaforjustice]

47. Defrock the Pope by De-Funding the Church.

Whether Pope Benedict is a pedophile or not, we have much factual evidence to prove that he personally obstructed the prosecution of pedophile priests who raped children. In the persona of Cardinal Ratzinger, he issued an order to all the world's bishops demanding that they forward all reports of sexual abuse about priests to his office and requiring them, on pain of excommunication, to maintain strict silence about the existence of such reports, a silence that would clearly forbid other Catholic authorities from notifying police about such crimes.

We know that Pope Benedict, again as a Cardinal, actively permitted priests accused of sexual crimes to remain in good standing with the church, albeit transferring them to new communities where they could continue plying their crimes against children. In one case, a transferred priest, who raped over 200 deaf children, was enabled to continue committing these crimes.

Pope Benedict must be fired and criminally charged with obstruction of justice, but no mechanism seems to exist to effect that, outside of his tendering his own resignation. This could be accomplished if Catholics all over the world ceased to give their money to the Catholic church and gave instead to worthy local projects. When the church hierarchy has its bank accounts sufficiently depleted, they would likely take all steps necessary to rid themselves of "this bothersome pope" by demanding that the Pope resign. Once Pope Benedict is no longer pope, he loses his head of state immunity and could be criminally charged -- in many jurisdictions throughout the world.

By his actions (and omissions) Pope Benedict facilitated unimaginable suffering in the lives of thousands of children. One way to hold the Pope and the Church accountable is to cut off its funding. Good Catholics, throw these criminals out of the temple. Stop contributing to coffers of the church until they thoroughly and completely clean out their house of God by holding all who participated in the crimes accountable.

[skepticscott]

50. Not that I disagree with you

but "fired" by whom? I suppose God could fire him, if he existed, but since he doesn't, I'm holding my breath for Ratzi's pink slip.

And I don't know it for a fact, but I'm guessing the Vatican has enough lucre squirreled away in places most people don't even know about to keep themselves healthy for a very long time, even if sensible people stopped giving them money tomorrow.

[rug]

51. Why are you comparing pedophiles to "twisted and deranged closet cases"?

[troubledamerican]

54. (PHOTOS) Maybe not a pedophile ... but yes a fascist

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BZaPGsbLyHM/SX1KPzXardI/AAAAAAAADt8/m6sIosAAf8w/s400/Ratzinger+Hitler+Salute.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JRkgseRT7NY/SzA7i7g8s8I/AAAAAAAAA2E/ckmdb0H3egw/s400/catholic+bishops+and+future+pope+benedict+joseph+ratzinger+nazi+salute.png

[laconicsax]

64. That top picture is actually doctored.

The full picture shows that he has both arms raised.

There's enough out there about Ratzinger's participation in fascist and authoritarian organizations that you shouldn't need to post doctored pictures.

[ironbark]

72. Whathehell. What’s a single falsified photo in a stinking sea of fabrication?

This is the Sargasso of Speculation.

Not a breath of a breeze of fair play or decency.

Everybody and everything is apparently ‘fair game’.

[TZ]

70. I don't like the Pope or the Church much BUT

Its totally irresponsible to go around slinging baseless accusations like this.
This is really flamebait of the worst sort.

[uberllama42]

86. I know, right?

I was tempted to post "IBTL" and be done with it, but it became clear that this wasn't going to be locked.

[iris27]

74. Unnecessary.

His criminal involvement in covering up the actions of child rapists is enough that Catholics everywhere should be demanding that he step down. Speculation of this sort is immaterial.

[Deep13]

76. My guess: he's not, but he is aware of it happening and has done nothing to stop it. nt

[Facebook Group]

102. Join the "Down With Pope Benedict XVI" Facebook Group

It's a small gesture, but I'm hoping that millions of people around the world join the group to show the vatican that we've had enough cover ups, enough abuse, and that in light of the truth that has come out, the Pope should resign. Join "Down With Pope Benedict XVI" Facebook Group and post your opinion on this serious issue.