PDA

View Full Version : Pope to resign


W*GS
02-11-2013, 09:37 AM
He couldn't handle tweeting.

Requiem
02-11-2013, 09:42 AM
Wonder if there is more to it than being old.

alkemical
02-11-2013, 09:50 AM
"We are oft to blame in this, -- Tis too much proved - that with devotion's visage and pious action, we do sugar o'er the devil himself"

Rohirrim
02-11-2013, 10:09 AM
Well, I don't have a lot of experience in that line of work, but I might be open to it. How much does the job pay?

myMind
02-11-2013, 11:08 AM
I didn't even know a pope could resign. Now that I do, I still don't care.

cutthemdown
02-11-2013, 01:48 PM
He was a hard line pope from what i read about him. Seriously though do Americans even care about the pope anymore? Even catholics in America don't seem to listen to the pope anymore.

cutthemdown
02-11-2013, 01:49 PM
I didn't even know a pope could resign. Now that I do, I still don't care.

I liked this pope when he said it like it was. Islam has always been a bunch of butchers who use the sword to spread religion.

He left out the part where Christians did same thing lol.

peacepipe
02-11-2013, 01:57 PM
Wonder if there is more to it than being old.

IDK,but his background prior to being pope is stained.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/03/more-evidence-emerges-tha_n_524192.html

El Minion
02-11-2013, 02:08 PM
I'm sure this documentary didn't help but probably also didn't factor in his decision. Highly recommend if for no other reason on then-cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, role in protecting the institution instead of protecting the children. Their is no denying that he can never say he didn't know since every case and file of alleged priest abuse was explicitly ordered by him to be sent to him.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p0I0rM1asLw/UKfDAiZVwAI/AAAAAAAAdA8/dMHpZbBoyh4/s640/Mea_Maxima_Culpa_Key+Art+copy.jpg

Crushaholic
02-11-2013, 02:20 PM
I didn't even know a pope could resign. Now that I do, I still don't care.

I know you said that you didn't care, but the last pope to resign was in 1415. Therefore, I don't blame you for not knowing a pope can resign. Having said that, you may go back to not caring...:sunshine:

BroncoBuff
02-11-2013, 07:22 PM
A lifelong and devout Catholic gentleman was preparing to board a plane when he heard that the Pope was on the same flight. 'What luck' thought the gentleman. 'Perhaps I'll be able to see him in person.'

Moments later, the man realized his seat was right next to the Pope himself! Still, he was too shy to speak to the Pope. Shortly after take-off, the Pope took a crossword puzzle out of his bag and began working on it. 'Great,' the man thought, 'I'm good at crosswords. If the Pope gets stuck, he's sure to ask for assistance.'

Right away the Pope turned to the man and asked, "Excuse me, but do you know a four letter word referring to a woman that ends in 'unt'?

The man was in shock. He was not about to speak that word to the Pope! The gentleman thought for a while longer, then it hit him. Turning to the pope, the gentleman said, "I think you're looking for the word 'aunt'."

"Of course" replied the Pope. "Say, do you have an eraser?"

DenverBrit
02-11-2013, 07:30 PM
http://i.imgur.com/rmrTyUvl.png


http://i.imgur.com/dbWLoXWl.png

BroncoBeavis
02-12-2013, 08:44 AM
I'm sure this documentary didn't help but probably also didn't factor in his decision. Highly recommend if for no other reason on then-cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, role in protecting the institution instead of protecting the children. Their is no denying that he can never say he didn't know since every case and file of alleged priest abuse was explicitly ordered by him to be sent to him.

I'm not super familiar with his specific role in it, and I'm not Catholic. But from reading this it doesn't seem like he's necessarily the guy anyone should blame. He was only in that role for 4 or 5 years before being elected Pope. And it looks like he was shaking things up a little more than some people liked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Sexual_abuse_in_the_Catholic_Chu rch

El Minion
02-13-2013, 02:55 PM
I'm not super familiar with his specific role in it, and I'm not Catholic. But from reading this it doesn't seem like he's necessarily the guy anyone should blame. He was only in that role for 4 or 5 years before being elected Pope. And it looks like he was shaking things up a little more than some people liked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Sexual_abuse_in_the_Catholic_Chu rch

The Great Catholic Cover-Up (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/03/the_great_catholic_coverup.html)

The pope's entire career has the stench of evil about it.

By Christopher Hitchens (http://www.slate.com/authors.christopher_hitchens.html)|Posted Monday, Feb. 11, 2013, at 12:00 PM ET

Citing wavering strength of mind and body, Pope Benedict XVI announced his decision to resign from the papacy at the end of February. He will be the first pope to abdicate in nearly six centuries (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/11/pope_benedict_xvi_will_abdicate.html). In 2010, as allegations of pedophilic priests continued to swirl, Christopher Hitchens decried individual and institutional corruption within the church’s sacred walls. His original article is reprinted below.

On March 10, the chief exorcist of the Vatican, the Rev. Gabriele Amorth (who has held this demanding post for 25 years), was quoted as saying (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece) that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican," and that "when one speaks of 'the smoke of Satan' in the holy rooms, it is all true—including these latest stories of violence and pedophilia." This can perhaps be taken as confirmation that something horrible has indeed been going on in the holy precincts, though most inquiries show it to have a perfectly good material explanation.

Concerning the most recent revelations about the steady complicity of the Vatican in the ongoing—indeed endless—scandal of child rape, a few days later a spokesman for the Holy See made a concession in the guise of a denial. It was clear, said (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/world/europe/14pope.html) the Rev. Federico Lombardi, that an attempt was being made "to find elements to involve the Holy Father personally in issues of abuse." He stupidly went on to say that "those efforts have failed."

He was wrong twice. In the first place, nobody has had to strive to find such evidence: It has surfaced, as it was bound to do. In the second place, this extension of the awful scandal to the topmost level of the Roman Catholic Church is a process that has only just begun. Yet it became in a sense inevitable when the College of Cardinals elected, as the vicar of Christ on Earth, the man chiefly responsible for the original cover-up. (One of the sanctified voters in that "election" was Cardinal Bernard Law (http://www.slate.com/id/2062309/) of Boston, a man who had already found the jurisdiction of Massachusetts a bit too warm for his liking (http://www.slate.com/id/2075831/).)

There are two separate but related matters here: First, the individual responsibility of the pope in one instance of this moral nightmare and, second, his more general and institutional responsibility for the wider lawbreaking and for the shame and disgrace that go with it. The first story is easily told, and it is not denied by anybody. In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor. (Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing "abuse"?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for "therapy" by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger's deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to "pastoral" work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault.

It is, of course, claimed, and it will no doubt later be partially un-claimed, that Ratzinger himself knew nothing of this second outrage. I quote, here, from the Rev. Thomas Doyle, a former employee of the Vatican Embassy in Washington and an early critic of the Catholic Church's sloth in responding to child-rape allegations. "Nonsense," he says. "Pope Benedict is a micromanager (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/world/europe/13pope.html). He's the old style. Anything like that would necessarily have been brought to his attention. Tell the vicar general to find a better line. What he's trying to do, obviously, is protect the pope."

This is common or garden stuff, very familiar to American and Australian and Irish Catholics whose children's rape and torture, and the cover-up of same by the tactic of moving rapists and torturers from parish to parish, has been painstakingly and comprehensively exposed. It's on a level with the recent belated admission (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/09/pope-brother-violence-school) by the pope's brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, that while he knew nothing about sexual assault at the choir school he ran between 1964 and 1994, now that he remembers it, he is sorry for his practice of slapping the boys around.

Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics.) Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection1) reports (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection) in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)

Not content with shielding its own priests from the law, Ratzinger's office even wrote its own private statute of limitations. The church's jurisdiction, claimed Ratzinger, "begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18<sup>th</sup> year of age" and then lasts for 10 more years. Daniel Shea, the attorney for two victims who sued Ratzinger and a church in Texas, correctly describes that latter stipulation as an obstruction of justice. "You can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10, the priest will get away with it."

The next item on this grisly docket will be the revival of the long-standing allegations (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/04/world/AP-LT-Mexico-Legionaries-Scandal.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=maciel&st=cse) against the Rev. Marcial Maciel, founder of the ultra-reactionary Legion of Christ, in which sexual assault seems to have been almost part of the liturgy. Senior ex-members of this secretive order found their complaints ignored and overridden by Ratzinger during the 1990s, if only because Father Maciel had been praised by the then-Pope John Paul II as an "efficacious guide to youth." And now behold the harvest of this long campaign of obfuscation. The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity, whose ineptitude in that job now shows him to us as a man personally and professionally responsible for enabling a filthy wave of crime. Ratzinger himself may be banal, but his whole career has the stench of evil—a clinging and systematic evil that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel. What is needed is not medieval incantation but the application of justice—and speedily at that.

TonyR
02-13-2013, 04:43 PM
Pope Benedict's pathetic and euphemistic letter to his "flock" in Ireland doesn't even propose that such people should lose their positions in the church. And this cowardly guardedness on his part is for a good and sufficient reason: If there was to be a serious criminal investigation, it would have to depose the pope himself. Not only did he, as Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, protect a dangerously criminal priest in his own diocese of Munich and Freising in 1980, having him sent only for "therapy" instead of having him arrested. (The question of the priest's later reassignment to assault more children, which the church continues to obfuscate, is irrelevant to the fact of Ratzinger's direct and personal involvement in the original crime.) Not content with this, Ratzinger later originated, as a cardinal and head of a major institution in Rome, a letter that effectively instructed all bishops to refuse cooperation with any inquiry into what was fast becoming a global scandal. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/03/tear_down_that_wall.html