They reported pretty heavily on the abuses going on in the Hasidic neighborhoods as well.
The irony* here is Tollhouse is apparently falsely accusing the victims, and engaging in the same behavior that he is accusing the justice system of doing. It’s very strange to watch him argue with devout Catholics in this very thread.
There’s a NON-malicious way to cover-up child sexual abuse?
Well, yes, I guess there is. One can be moved to cover up such crimes out of callousness, stupidity, insularity, naivete, arrogance, or entitlement. But there’s no benevolent way to cover up child sex abuse.
I have no particular affinity for the Church and I doubt even its supporters would praise the Vatican’s openness and transparency, but at least in this instance there doesn’t seem to be any reason to go beyond Benedict’s stated reasons for resignation. I agree that it’s unlikely for him to have been “pushed” by any recent revelations, since all that was basically known prior to the time he became Pope, in general outline if not precise detail.
What I find interesting is that such a conservative and traditionalist company man such as he would make this innovation now, towards the end of his life. In his statement, he appears to state that a Pope in the modern world has to have a certain amount of physical vigor and ability to travel, which he no longer possesses. He hasn’t set that standard out formally, but it will be interesting to see if future Popes follow his example, or if he’ll become just another historical anomaly.
Sorry I dont have hours at a time to post but ill reply quikly to couple things…rittersport, I havent kept track of each posters religion here or lack thereof, since you said your surprised I would argue with " all the devout catholics here".for one thing,have a bunch of people stated they are.catholics and devoutly so? If so, I havent been keeping track of who is what religion. Does that mean non Catholics are not as qualified to speak on it?
Not sure how many other devout Catholics are posting to this thread but if he didn’t mostly make sense, you could be forgiven for confusing Bricker with Bill Donohue. If you’d spent any time at all reading GD threads (your join date notwithstanding) you’d have a hard time missing his posts.
In any event, even if all the Catholics agreed with you, you’d still be wrong. Your position essentially boils down to “no criminal conviction can ever be proof of anything because sometimes people are wrongly convicted,” and it’s silly.
It seems perfectly clear that what Ritter and Marley were referring to is that Bricker is a devout Catholic (and said so explicitly) so that your claim of bias against the Roman Catholic Church obviously doesn’t apply to him.
I have also said that while I’ve recently left the Church I was active for many years and involved both as a lawyer and in an advisory way with the response and preventive measures in my diocese.
You’ve been asked repeatedly what basis you have for accusing a substantial percentage of the victims of abuse by priests of being liars, and have simply failed to respond. It’s apparent that you have no basis, and whether you’ve kept track of the religion of people asking you to support your claims is obviously beside the point.
Are you a lawyer with knowledge of these claims? Do you hold some position in the Church that has given you access to this information? Are you just making it up?
You’re also arguing with the church, which has acknowledged in every way possible that thousands of children were abused.
There’s an “anti-Catholic bent in the media”?
What’s next, complaing that the media is controlled by Jews and one can’t criticize Israel without being called an anti-Semite?
Let me show you why these claims were false, using this paper towel tube here…
Depends on whether you count misguided concern for the reputations of the victims as “benevolent”.
Remember, in earlier decades being the victim of sexual molestation was considered much more shameful for the victim than it is now. Otherwise well-meaning people were willing to sweep incidents of child sexual abuse under the rug to an extent that we would now consider immoral, simply because it would have been regarded as so devastating to the victims to have their communities know or even suspect what happened to them.
Mind you, AFAICT the official cover-up strategies in the Church hierarchy were motivated much more by self-serving defensiveness than by concern for the victims’ well-being. But I’m sure there were quite a few non-molesting priests who really were strongly influenced by the fear of the victims’ suffering from the shame of having their molesters’ crimes publicly exposed.
I was wondering the same thing, but I live in the piddly, little, media market of Chicago and there’s only 9.5 million people in it, with the lion’s share being, at least nominally, Catholic. The only “anti-Catholic bent” I’ve seen in the national media, at least since the end of the original Know-Nothing Party, has been Jack Chick comics, the rest of the media being shy about offending 25% of the market.
slow clap
I don’t know how you manage to do it, but every time the wackiest, most insane and terrible posts are made, you pick them apart incessantly, over and over, and over and over again, time after time. I am impressed.
I would be much more likely to take the kayaker route and just say “shut up you rape apologist” (because frankly I feel that’s all that most people deserve), but you always take the higher ground and you never let go.
It’s admirable. I derive so much pleasure from reading all of your measured, well reasoned responses to irrational post after irrational post.
Also, I think some people watch too much South Park if they feel the media has an “Anti-Catholic bent”! The very idea is absurd.
Pope Allegedly Sought Immunity For Abuse Crimes Just Before Resigning.
Granted the article is light on sources ans used the word “allegedly” in various forms at least 5 times.
There are other reasons to be suspicious of the story. First, if there is a European state which doesn’t acknowledge the sovereignty of the Vatican, and so would consider for an instant issuing such a warrant, now would be a good time to name it. Secondly, the Italian Republic certainly does recognise the sovereignty of the Vatican, and has treaty commitments to provide various immunities and privileges. It would not consider enforcing such a warrant. The pope doesn’t need to “beg” for immunity from the jurisdiction of the Italian republic; he already has it. Thirdly, does the Italian president have any power to grant a request of this kind? I wouldn’t have thought that such a decision came within his sphere of responsibilty. Whoever came up with this simply assumed that the Italian president has powers and policy role similar to the US president. He does not.
The article tells us that “it seems” this, and “apparently” that. No sources are mentioned; no claim is even made that the sources are credible or well-informed. The apparent, seeming story doesn’t appear to have been subjected to the most rudimentary credibililty analysis by the “journalist” over whose by-line it appears. I’m calling BS.
There is a ‘source’
Whether it is a good source or not is another matter. This self-proclaimed Tribunal is serious about going after this nest of criminals and has written to the Italian Govt it says.
I’m not sure former heads of state have blanket immunity for crimes against humanity either but I have my doubts whether any Euro Govt would have the guts to go after the RC unfortunately.
The Director of Max Mea Culpa, a film on the scandal claims that something called the Servants of the Paraclete put a down payment on a Carribean Island to establish a refuge for paedophile priests, and no doubt, an orphanage or two.
Certainly some agency should grow the balls to prosecute this ex-pope orchestrator of part of the decades if not centuries long cover up.
And we all know, because it is a matter of public record, what he did about it. As little as he could possibly get away with. Plenty of public hand-wringing and crocodile tears though.
From your source:
Comments?
They should go for it.
In a just world the RC would be treated as a joint criminal enterprise as beaten around the head with anti-racketeering laws.
Child abuse isn’t, strictly speaking, a crime against humanity. I mean, it is, but in a legal sense the phrase is generally used to refer to violations of the law of nations: piracy, genocide and so on.
From wiki, for what it is worth.
Child abuse was widespread and systemic and they were absolutely tolerated and condoned. And the RC is the de facto authority.
There are some very interesting twists to this story today: I’m not sure if it’s true because it sort of feels like wishful thinking, but there are some media reports in Italy that Benedict is going to meet with the president of Italy next week to discuss immunity from prosecution. But I see other reports that he’s going to live in the Vatican full time (after some renovations are complete), which might give him legal immunity anyway.