The Pope.

Im in no way clued up on the subject, living in Wales being catholic or protistant isnt really a major deal. However what I will say is I know for a fact that many, if not the majority of celtic fans who sing about the pope, do so purely to join in with the crowd, and this is what I really dislike.

 

At what point in any of my posts did I name check you, o anyone else, as being someone who has resorted to name calling? Ah, that's right, nowhere.

You've not read either of my first two posts, have you? Hitchen's clearly states that you must look beyond the robes and the catholic church and see the man for himself. The fact that he's the head of the catholic church shouldn't make him ANY differant from a filthy peadophile living down the street from you.

If anything, his robes and status are being used to defend him, not used against him.

Why have you brought up religion? it shouldn't even be a factor here, yet once again, it's those who choose to defend him that resort to using this as a shield of some sort.

I'm also confused as to why I would feel "used", maybe I haven't understood your analogy but if one of my neighbours was hiding a peadophile, I'd be the first person onto the phone to the police. Also, I've done enough research for myself to suggest that there's a tad more substance than neighbourhood "gossip". Hitchens' and Dawkins' merely echo my own feelings, they, however, have a fantastic grasp of the english language and use it to full effect, hence I quoted them.

Peadophila is a fairly black and white subject, so the above paragraph has no place in this discussion. If Hitchens' and Dawkins' were so incredibly wrong, then why are there no legal proceedings currently underway as what they are saying, by your standards it would seem, is libel.

Best friend or not, if there was the slightest bit of substance to any accusations, again, I'd be the first person on the phone to the police.

Utter trash, old boy.

***Here's another way to look at it, and I'll warn everyone right now, reader's discretion is advised as I will put this VERY bluntly.***




If you have children, how would you feel towards the pope had a priest molested YOUR child/children and when the police are on their way to arrest said priest, he hops on a plane to the vatican city where he remains, unquestioned an untried all whilst having the full backing of the pope.

Would you not be completely disgusted not only by the priest but by the pope for refusing to do anything about it other than try to cover it up to "save face"?

Think about it closer to home, then maybe you'll open your eyes a little as to what's actually going on.

 

An Ouzi 9mm at the very least for me.

 

Disliking or even hating the Pope because of what the Catholic Church has done in the past 1000 years? How so?

Nobody says the Catholic Church is perfect - we are all aware of the nuisances especially during the Middle Age. at the end of the day the chruch consists of humans, and wherever humans are mistakes will be made.

Especially people in charge and in power often abuse their position (politicians, governments, religions leaders etc).

Sometimes I feel like the catholic church was the only institution that had sinned. anybody else is just perfect.

I know a lot of people that say "oh those priests are all paedos"... that narrowmindedness and discrimination reminds me of bigots and racists. under no circumstances don't distinguish or even think for yourself - the world is so easy when you can say anybody that is a priest is this, anybody that is a policeman is that etc.

It's a shame what happened with all those boys.. unfortunately I personally know some victims of sexual abuse. and no, not by priests, by their own familymembers. most of the times the abusers got covered by other family members... unfortunately it happens everywhere. no matter if you are a catholic, muslim, jew, black, white, asian, european, african, etc.

I'm disgusted by some comments. not because we are supposed to be a catholic club, because we are supposed to be celtic supporters. no narrowminded fuckwits.. but as I said before.. it happens everywhere. among us there are fuckwits, * and - it's gonna shock some - even paedos.

it's the way it is woefully.

I would take it kindly if the catholic church or pope bashers could at least tell their rational and constructive opinion rather than the "he is a *" nonsense you would expect from a 11 year old with no knowledge.

* bless the pope, * bless the Swiss Guard

 

Well Marco, you do seem to be taking this particularly personally. Such was not my intention. I merely assumed that the general, without exclusion of the particular, included the particular. Now that you have clarified matters I accept that you were not referring to me.

Yes, I have, and very interesting and well structured they were.

He does mention that, but that does not detract from his metier, which is, put bluntly, "Organised Religion bad, Humanism good". Which of course, is the "new" enlightenment, of which he is a doyen. An interesting corolary perhaps?

If what you mean is Hitchens is saying is that the Popes robes should not be allowed to defend him, then I agree, that is what he is saying. However, that is, as I have said, an absolute, based on Hitchens deeply held and prosaically expressed beliefs that "Organised Religion bad, Humanism good".

Erm, we are talking about the Pope? Its a pretty relevant factor. Except to absolutists....

Actually I havent done that, but I will answer your point here. Religion is a factor. Its the biggest factor. As you have pointed out, were Benedict an ordinary guy we may well not be having this discussion. However, he is the head of one of the worlds largest religions, and a target for humanist attention. It suits those commentators to say "If it wasnt for organised religion, he would be on trial, lets put him on trial!" I have yet to hear either Hitchen or Dawkins present a paper on, say, failed attempts to catch paedophiles before they re-offend. Why? Doesnt fit their agenda? Perhaps.....

I think thats obvious. In any event I merely posed the question.

And if you were misled about them being a peadophile by someone with an agenda? What then?

And they are academics, and much better debaters than almost all of us. That is why they are so beguiling. Doesnt make them right. As for proof, I wouldnt convict Benedict on what there is. Arrest him when he arrives in the UK? What purpose will that serve? Justice? Why target the Pope? What Justice do you believe in? Retribution? Theres a Turkish lad who would like to talk to you. Reform? How will arresting the Pope help reform the Catholic Church? Making a point about Organised Religion? Aahhh......there you have it.

Again, if you are an absolutist........

Leaving aside attempts to indicte/ arrest the Pope by Humanists, the papacy has weathered much worse storms without resorting to litigation. I would imagine the Popes first reaction would be to pray for them in order that they see the light.

Without speaking to them, trying to understand why your best friend was being accused of such a thing? You would just drop them without a thought? Ok. I wouldnt. Lets agree to differ on that one.

Yes, that is blunt. I do have children. And your analogy is polemic. It is not designed to promote reasoned responses, as no reasonable response can be made when ones children are threatened. So you have opened a whole new line of thinking and reaction there.

My response would be get on a plane, go to Rome, find the guy and hand him his lungs. I wouldnt give a * about what the Pope did. But we have not advanced the debate about whether the Pope is liked or not.

In any event your assumption is that all of that has been done "to save face". And that is all that is at the moment - an assumption.

Whether I like the Pope or not will not be dictated by loquacious dilletantes with an axe to grind.

I have enjoyed our chat though. :bbpd:

 

* bless the pope :icon_mrgreen:

 

Dawkins poses a false dichotomy between faith (the belief in the unknowable) and science/rationality (determining for certain, in narrow parameters, the knowable). What is shameful for Dawkins is that he does it for his own benefit and betrays his own beliefs in falsification.



I just want to empahsise here that I'm not making an argument against the scientific method, only its use as a smokescreen for smug dogmatism.

 

Smugger than smug dogmatism!

 

i am a roman catholic. the pope is the head of the world's catholics. therefore i like the pope, although I did prefer JPII.

i do acknowledge the faults of the church, mainly the paedophilia scandal. but the proportion of paedophile priests is comparible to the proportion of married men who are paedophiles but we dont see the media highlighting this fact. they have an agend. scandal sells. simple as that

* Bless The Pope!

 

Don't you see that it's the cover up involved - the cover up with roots all the way to the Pope himself - that's the big problem here. Covering up a paedophile ring in the Church is not a "fault", it's a crime against human decency.

I beleive covering up a Sin to save face constitutes both the Sin of Pride and a Mortal Sin?

 

when those who look and see what i and others write, know this, you are looking at a product of a man who lives far away, and is not afraid of death, not in the way a dare devil or some steroid induced ranting from a beefheaded *, but, although i do not wish it upon myself or any of my brothers, i cannot say i would be afraid of suddenly dying because i would be dead and would be completely indifferent to it, i say this because creationists often tell me i am afraid of death or some other * of that sort that cannot be refuted as it is a matter of opinion

as we are looking at a matter of opinion and not of fact we see a debate form and flourish within the minds of decent people everywhere, as it is our human nature to seek truth, light in darkness

not only does this split in opinion shape us as human being but it can drive us to think of other subjects in different lights than other people

that brings us to the general opinion of catholics on here that will defend the pope no matter what he sanctions and no matter what he covers up because the fundamental values of catholicism are that the holiest man on the planet is the pope

whatever he does or covers up, people will still defend him because they beleive they can defend what they beleive in when. quite clearly, there is a huge gap between what they beleive and what they currently defend, to the point where they completely contrast eachother

 

If you dislike Dawkins, or anyone with a supposed 'anti Catholic' agenda, then follow your religion, and forgive him.

I'd also like to ask 2 questions which has been bothering me for some time.

Firstly, why does religion deserve respect? I see many posts about how people respect religion, or that it shouldn't be questioned. Religion is a choice, the same way that following a political party is a choice. People slag off fascists or communists all the time, yet the minute a religious belief is questioned, believers take offence at it. I don't understand this.

Another question - I see a lot of people who dislike Dawkins. That is your right as a human, and I don't mind that one bit. Yet I've not seen anyone logically refute anything that Dawkins et al have claimed, not on these boards anyway.

 

And the church is also colluding with the board to drive the club into the ground and line their pockets.

 

Coming from Sunderland in the North East of England I have very little knowledge on the pope, im not a Catholic, if someone does't mind could they fill me in with this whole controversial subject?

Why are people arguring for and against the pope?

Dont want to stir any trouble just really dont understand this whole subject and its something I would like to know.

 

The only person that keeps reverting back to religion being a factor here is yourself, not me. So who really has the agenda?...My only mention of religion has been that it should not matter, why should it? If my next door neighbour was a devout catholic and a peadophile, would his faith in catholicism absolve him? * no! So why should the pope be held in any higher esteem than someone who considers themself holy?

Josef Ratzinger, the man, should be arrested and questioned, that's my point.

My argument, along with Hitchens and Dawkins is that the pope should not be held above the law but tried as any other normal, everyday man would under these circumstances, yet it's people like yourself who constantly deflect attention from him by claiming that the only reason people like myself want him arrested and questioned, is because of our hatred for the catholic church. You're just using diversion tactics so you don't have to deal with the bare issue at hand, allowing you to come across like you're putting forward a good argument.

Crux of the argument: The pope's position as head of the catholic church should not exonerate him from the law and it's punishments or at very least, an investigation into the claims.

Again, YOU'RE using religion as a factor and a shield here. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that there has been a (excuse the pun) mass cover up and while you feel the pope may be praying for the poor priests who violated young boys, I'll personally be thinking of the poor victims, their families and what an injustice it is that the two men willing to put their name and face out there to bring this man to justice, are ridiculed on forums such as this. Whatever their alterior motives are (Hitchens, Dawkins), their main goal is to bring a potential peadophile overlord, to some extent, to justice and that should be applauded.

As I said in my previous post, if there was proof or some sort of substantial evidence that I had at hand, then I would call the police. It's a bit silly to think I or anyone else for that matter, would go running to the police based on doorstep gossip. My downstairs neighbour is a drug dealer apparently and there's also a hooker living in my building...do I believe any of this or take it with a pinch of salt?...it's obviously the latter, but had I seen my downstairs neighbour selling drugs? well, now I'll have a decision to make, personally, as far as drugs are concerned, I wouldn't do anything, but that's a topic of discussion for another day.

The idea of that last analogy was to put you in the victims families position. I'd imagine they want justice, don't you want that for them too, now that you've put yourself in their position for a moment? This is exactly the kind of analogy and question that SHOULD be getting asked as it promotes natural response, this allowing the individual thinking it a better insight into why people feel so strongly on the subject of bringing law breakers such as peadophiles and accomplices to task.

I know it's a horrible thought, I have 2 younger brothers and 2 neices whom I'm very close with. I feel that you can only trully understand someones pain if you have been through it yourself, therefore by putting yourself in a hypothetical situation as such, you show your true emotion and reaction. Your's was of disgust, like any other normal, rational human being...and rightly so.

...and I'd like to point out that you used these tactics before with your last post, refering to neighbours/friends etc. and yep, it's been a good debate, look forward to your reply!

 

It'll be worth your while going back to the original post and reading everything from there, forward. It's a bit of a touchy subject for some so having a bit of an insight into the topic before posting wouldn't go amiss

 

Hi Marco - cracking stuff, really enjoyed reading your reply - you will see my post was pretty late at night - I was able to give your thoughts the time they merited.

I cant do that right now, as I am at work, so I have to be brief - which may be the soul of wit, but not necesarily the best for a debate, so please forgive me if I miss something.

I dont think we are that far apart, I think the main issue is Hitchens and Dawkins.

I admit I have a bias, as a practicing catholic who found his religion again and discovered he never lost his faith. But I dont blindly defend the Church. Believe me, if there was sufficient evidence to show that the Pope had, as Cardinal Ratzinger, for no other reasona than loss of face to the Church, aided and abetted criminals in a way which allowed them to continue to commit those crimes, I would be vocal within the Church for this to be addressed. I know a bit about Canon Law, but I am not an expert, so cant tell you what would need to be done. I would want, however, to at least try and preserve the fabric of the Church, to preserve the good that it does and can continue to do.

And thats the difference between me and Hitchens et al. They are Humanists and want an end to organised religion. They would tear it down around our heads and replace it with man in his own image (sorry, bit of purple prose there).

So I dont agree I am merely using religion as a deflector shield from the main issue of a "cover up", its just my view is not absolutist and not reduced to one cause and one effect. Hitchens etc try and persude us that it is that simple, but it just is not. I also dont see enough evidence to make that judgement yet about the Pope.

Can you imagine the effect on the UK and across the globe if the Pope was arrested in the UK, or at all? Jesus, if it happened in Glasgow there would be civl war. Can you imagine the chaos and strife it would cause, all in the name of some humanistic ideal? It would make the paedophilia issue look like a side show of a side show, and it would cause much much more physical and mental turbulence than the paedophilia issue.

Hitchens knows the arrest will never happen, that is part of his reasoning. "I bay and bay and bay for this, I persuade people it is simple and possible and just, and when it does not happen I say "Look how corrupt religion is, it even corrupts our legal system! Free Yourselves!"" Or the Pope stays away "See how he flees from Justice". He is a smart guy and this is an elegant parliamentary strategy.


There is an argument that I have not deployed yet. It has strengths and weaknesses. But given the above apocalyptic prediction ( and I am not using that as a reason not to critcise the Pope) above, it could be said that as Catholics, this is our problem, one that we have to sort out. And if we dont, then our religion (but not our faith) will be diminshed as a result.

In short, it really has * all to do with Hitchens and Dawkins - unless they want to see an end to organised religion, which, of course, they do.

I think you are beginning to see my point about an absolutist response - you agree that you would want more than some one elses say so. Yes, I did refer to best friends in my analogy, but best friends and children provoke different responses, believe me. Much as I love my best friends, if it were them or my children, well, I would rather not make that choice, but it wouldnt take me a nanosecond. So the analogies are different.

One thing I have to take real issue with is your reference to the Pope as a "Paedophile Overlord". I do hope that was a case of you getting passionate, and not letting your mask slip. Even if he did cover this up - your description would be unjustified.

I do think there has been a cover up - indeed some Bishops have come out and accepted responsibility.

I think the Pope has had a life of hard decisions. I think he has made a lot of decisions for the good of his faith. Some will be right, some will have been wrong. This is not a matter of doctrine that I can see, and so not covered by the issue of infallibility (whether you agree with that one or not).

But the main summary of my long windedness is - I decide whether I like the Pope. I dont do it because the Pope tells me I have to like him, or because two Humanists with an agenda tell me not to. And because I think my religion is better than not, I would like to sort out the problems without destroying it, as some would like to do.

I cant make my points any other way, and I am not trying to persuade you otherwise, so perhaps our chats on this thread have run their course. I do hope you meant it when you aid you enjoyed the banter.:icon_mrgreen:

Anyhoo, back to work.

 

Nice post, a few bones of contention however.

(1) - I don't understand when you say that the cause of the chaos and strife would be in the name of a humanist ideal. Are you saying that the concept of punishment for a wrong doing is a humanist ideal and therefore non applicable to members of the Church?
If the Pope were to be arrested (unlikely), and if there was conflict as a result, surely the only conflict would be in the name of defending the Pope. Non religious people should not have a problem with it because it has been proven that he was complicit in a crime. Even if that itself is in doubt, he should, as a person of interest, be at least questioned by the authorities.
Like I said, the conflict would not be in name of a humanist ideal, but rather a deist ideal of protecting the pope from prosecution, no? Unless I have misunderstood your original statement.

(2) - I disagree that religions should be left to sort out themselves. They are already (unfairly IMO) tax exempt in many countries but to claim that they are above the rule of law is too much for me.
If you were to award such leniency to the Catholic church then all other religions would immediately have the same claim.
The law of man comes first, and then, if it can co-exist, the rule of religion. In cases where to two conflict, there can be only one winner. To have a system otherwise is utterly unthinkable.

 

I'm just about to head out so don't have time to give you a full length reply, but I felt the need to post this...

You'll find that i called him a "potential peadophile overlord" but your brain refused to acknowledge the word "potential" and you immediatly went on the defensive...

...you're not thinking with an unbiased head, are you?

There you have the problem, even after all this debate, you are still unable to see the man, Josef Ratzinger.


Oh, and the debate's been brilliant but I think there's still some heat in the coals yet! haha

 

As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger was responible for enforcing "the faith and morals throught the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its comepetence".

That means it is responsible for enforcing Canon Law and Vatican Doctrine in the Church. This was specifically said to include dealing with cases with * abuse in 2001. That same year, Ratzinger issued the "De delictus gravioribus", which clarified the nature of confidentiality of internal Church investigations - investigations headed by his office - which discouraged informing civil law enforcement about crimes committed by Priests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_of_silence_(expression)