Pope Benedict Seeking Immunity?

[listopencil]

Pope Benedict to seek immunity and protection from Italian President Giorgio Napolitano on February 23 Posted on February 14, 2013 by itccs

http://itccs.org/2013/02/14/pope-ben...n-february-23/

Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger, has scheduled a meeting with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano for Saturday, February 23 to discuss securing protection and immunity from prosecution from the Italian government, according to Italian media sources.

Ratzinger's meeting follows upon the apparent receipt by the Vatican of a diplomatic note from an undisclosed European government on February 4, stating its intention to issue an arrest warrant for Ratzinger, who resigned from his pontificate less than a week later.

In response to the February 23 meeting, the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS), through its field Secretary, Rev. Kevin Annett, has written to President Napolitano, asking him to refrain from assisting Ratzinger in evading justice.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

I would think that seemingly "straight" men who are pedophiles vastly outnumber seemingly "gay" men who are pedophiles. There are a lot more straight men in this world than there are gay men.

One of the odd and disturbing things about pedophiliacs/child molesters is that they are sexually attracted to something that I view as asexual. Prepubescent children. The thing is you can say that a gay man is sexually attracted to other men and a straight man is sexually attracted to women. You can even discuss bisexuality, but that still involves attraction to a partner. I think it's a mistake to lump pedophilia in with homosexuality. The closest thing that makes sense that I have seen is paraphilia, a sort of catch-all term mostly involving sexual attraction/sexual activity without an actual sex partner.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by listopencil

One of the odd and disturbing things about pedophiliacs/child molesters is that they are sexually attracted to something that I view as asexual. Prepubescent children. The thing is you can say that a gay man is sexually attracted to other men and a straight man is sexually attracted to women. You can even discuss bisexuality, but that still involves attraction to a partner. I think it's a mistake to lump pedophilia in with homosexuality. The closest thing that makes sense that I have seen is paraphilia, a sort of catch-all term mostly involving sexual attraction/sexual activity without an actual sex partner.

Yeah, that's why I ended up using the quote marks. Men who molest girls aren't having straight sex and men who molest boys aren't having gay sex.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by listopencil

That first article seems to show the child molesters tend to be attracted to age regardless of the gender of the victim.

Are you suggesting - with a straight face - that my son is just as likely to be molested by a straight man as a gay man?

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

and men who molest boys aren't having gay sex.

Proof?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Are you suggesting - with a straight face - that my son is just as likely to be molested by a straight man as a gay man?

I am suggesting that your son is most likely to be molested by a child molester. You can do the math for yourself.

[ClevelandBronco]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Proof?

What the ****?

Sex requires consent. Children can't consent. No sex, straight, gay or otherwise. Just a crime.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Honestly, any Bishop who knowingly moved a Priest multiple times, thus propagating the abuse and spreading it is as guilty as those who committed the abuse.

No, not really. Not legally, not morally. The Bishops who would follow the rules and send their accused priests to therapy were not evil people. Those priests who sexually abused children were evil. This is an important distinction that you need to recognize. If you think there were Bishops who knowingly or intentionally sought to see more children abused, you are going way beyond the evidence and have serious bad-faith premises that completely de-legitimize yourself in this argument.

The Bishops failed to protect their flocks from sexual predators, plain and simple.

Yes, this is true in so many cases. The entire Church hierarchy failed. The rules and laws that set up the framework for the hierarchy failed.

No person, not even the Pope and Roman Curia, is saying otherwise. That is why there has been a complete overhaul of those rules and laws when it comes to preventing and rooting out sexual abuse of children.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by La literatura

No, not really. Not legally, not morally. The Bishops who would follow the rules and send their accused priests to therapy were not evil people. Those priests who sexually abused children were evil. This is an important distinction that you need to recognize. If you think there were Bishops who knowingly or intentionally sought to see more children abused, you are going way beyond the evidence and have serious bad-faith premises that completely de-legitimize yourself in this argument.



Yes, this is true in so many cases. The entire Church hierarchy failed. The rules and laws that set up the framework for the hierarchy failed.

No person, not even the Pope and Roman Curia, is saying otherwise. That is why there has been a complete overhaul of those rules and laws when it comes to preventing and rooting out sexual abuse of children.

Yes really. Perhaps not legally (although if they worked in a secular environment then probably legally), and absolutely morally. Especially when a Priest is moved multiple times to multiple parishes. You would think after awhile, those in charge of moving these priests around would realize that the therapy was not working, and maybe, just maybe, something should be done to protect the children. They had a moral obligation to report a crime, and they failed to do so, period. That is how I see it. Just because someone is ordained does not make them immune to the laws of the land. At the end of the day, the intent of the Bishops is irrelevant. It is common sense that you should not put a known child molester in a position where he is alone with young boys...and yet this happened again and again.

When Pope Benedict face the Lord Almighty in the afterlife, that is going to be the question asked of him...why...why did you not protect the children?

I have kids, so I will admit that my judgement is skewed in this regard.

As to the bolded part of your statement...if those priests were evil, and the Bishops knew they were evil (since you acknowledge them as evil, it is not a stretch to believe that a Bishop would know evil when he saw it), then why were evil priests allowed to continue to minister to the flock? Shouldn't the flock be protected from evil?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

And the current / departing pope did it numerous times and covered up hundreds of more incidences.

You are a liar, Dave. You've even seen the movie and are making things up.

Stop lying. All your claims of caring about evidence, facts, and truth in the natural world seem to stop when it comes to your religious agenda. At that point, facts end and lies, speculation, and unbased accusations become your tool.

You are a liar.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Yes really. Perhaps not legally (although if they worked in a secular environment then probably legally), and absolutely morally. Especially when a Priest is moved multiple times to multiple parishes. You would think after awhile, those in charge of moving these priests around would realize that the therapy was not working, and maybe, just maybe, something should be done to protect the children.

Like de-frocking? Because after it was reported several times, and therapy didn't help, de-frocking the priest was the next step attempted by bishops. You saw in the movie how that failed, right?

At the end of the day, the intent of the Bishops is irrelevant. It is common sense that you should not put a known child molester in a position where he is alone with young boys...and yet this happened again and again.

Yeah, the intent is actually quite relevant when determining moral culpability. That's pretty basic common sense stuff. Also, "known child molester" is different from "accused child molester." Your assumptions are blinding you in this discussion. You're not imagining how a real scenario is played out in 1974.

As to the bolded part of your statement...if those priests were evil, and the Bishops knew they were evil (since you acknowledge them as evil, it is not a stretch to believe that a Bishop would know evil when he saw it), then why were evil priests allowed to continue to minister to the flock? Shouldn't the flock be protected from evil?

Again, known evil is different from accused evil. If you watch the movie more closely, you may get a hint of how these accusations played out.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

When Pope Benedict face the Lord Almighty in the afterlife, that is going to be the question asked of him...why...why did you not protect the children?

Why are you laying this at Pope Benedict's feet? Just take the Wisconsin case for example and explain to me what Benedict failed to do to protect the deaf adults in the movie.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

And it wasn't the bishops. The orders came from Ratzinger directly. There's a short piece in the film about how the bishops got thrown under the bus by the vatican. At least one of them leaked documents proving it was ordered directly from the vatican.

Would you care to point out at what point in the movie this occurs?

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Like de-frocking? Because after it was reported several times, and therapy didn't help, de-frocking the priest was the next step attempted by bishops. You saw in the movie how that failed, right?



Yeah, the intent is actually quite relevant when determining moral culpability. That's pretty basic common sense stuff. Also, "known child molester" is different from "accused child molester." Your assumptions are blinding you in this discussion. You're not imagining how a real scenario is played out in 1974.



Again, known evil is different from accused evil. If you watch the movie more closely, you may get a hint of how these accusations played out.

I have not seen the movie, so I will not address how the movie portrays anything.

As to defrocking, it appears Benedict was not a big fan of the practice, since he personally stepped in on behalf of a priest who molested 200 deaf children:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/wo...anted=all&_r=0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8587082.stm


Sure looks like he let Father Murphy slide by with narry a slap on the wrist.

The Bishops/Cardinals intent of protecting the church should have taken a back seat to protecting children, plain and simple.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Yes really. Perhaps not legally (although if they worked in a secular environment then probably legally), and absolutely morally. Especially when a Priest is moved multiple times to multiple parishes. You would think after awhile, those in charge of moving these priests around would realize that the therapy was not working, and maybe, just maybe, something should be done to protect the children. They had a moral obligation to report a crime, and they failed to do so, period. That is how I see it. Just because someone is ordained does not make them immune to the laws of the land. At the end of the day, the intent of the Bishops is irrelevant. It is common sense that you should not put a known child molester in a position where he is alone with young boys...and yet this happened again and again.

When Pope Benedict face the Lord Almighty in the afterlife, that is going to be the question asked of him...why...why did you not protect the children?

I have kids, so I will admit that my judgement is skewed in this regard.

As to the bolded part of your statement...if those priests were evil, and the Bishops knew they were evil (since you acknowledge them as evil, it is not a stretch to believe that a Bishop would know evil when he saw it), then why were evil priests allowed to continue to minister to the flock? Shouldn't the flock be protected from evil?

Your judgment appears to be skewed, but it's not because you have kids.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

I am not assuming anything...but even just one expands theses heinous crimes at an unacceptable rate. How many priests did Cardinal Law move around just on his own?

Maybe 4 or 5.

If the Pope were the head coach of Penn State, I don't think nearly as many people would be defending him....it can be argued that they are both guilty of the same offense.

So, you think it's fair to say that Joe Paterno is a pedophile and molested young boys?