Posted on 02/07/2005 10:42:58 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
Jack Kemp also contributed mightily to bringing down the Iron Curtain, but that doesn't mean he was right to take money for advocating the Iraqi government position over weapons inspections.
With regards to the sex scandals, I'd say Bishop Anthony O'Connell alone is plenty of proof that the Vatican was not engaged at any time in taking serious efforts to stop the abuse.
The Church acknowledged the problem (finally) in 2001. Now it is 2005, and the Church has shown no sign of concern beyond the repercussions of lawsuits against them.
As far as what I have personally witnessed, while I will not give the name I can provide you with the essential details. Some left wing nutjob psychotherapist using "recovered memories" made an accusation against this priest (which was ludicrous to anyone who knew him) not of molestation but of simply running his hand through the hair of a young boy. Seeing dollars, the family concocted a lawsuit. The priest not only got no support from the Church despite his innocence - on the contrary, the Church itself became yet another of his persecutors - but he was unjustly transfered from his post and his life pretty much ruined. While I can't name names due to ongoing litigation, I won't hide the fact that a good priest was betrayed by the Church he faithfully served his entire life, and I saw it happen step by step.
He's not to blame for the actions of others. He is to blame for his own lack of action as the highest worldly authority in that organization. Had our government done nothing about Abu Ghraib, or engaged in a cover-up at the expense of doing justice, then it would rightly be said that the President was responsible. But the difference in the behavior of the two leaders in the respective scandals is stark.
And this proves the Pope has "no conscience" how? You might be able to make a good case against the bishop involved, but I see no connection between this and the Pope.
You do know about Bishop Anthony O'Connell, yes? How can you ignore the Vatican role in that, or reasonably interpret it in any other way than to view it as a cover-up attempt gone horribly wrong? Appointing a child molestor to clean up child molestation... it's like putting Jaime Gorelick on the 9/11 commission.
Like putting Kofi Annan in charge of cleaning up the OFF scandal.
Do you think that JPI was a mistaken choice and he was called home by God to give the conclave another chance to pick the right one?
John Paul I's short reign will always be a mystery. He seemed well intentioned. Whether he died naturally is up to speculation. John Paul II has been attacked with a knife and gun. He seems indestructable. He won't call a council. The next council is for another pope to call. It will happen when the world is cleanned up a bit according to my previous post and the good things will be restored in light of the new times. This current pope could be " removed" by force though according to some earlier private prophecies by future bloody events. God bless.
I do know that the Pope accepted O'Connell's resignation as bishop of Palm Beach after O'Connell admitted to touching a teenage boy, though he denied "molesting" him. I know of no evidence that the Pope was aware that O'Connell was a child molestor when he was appointed bishop, much less that he was appointed bishop because it was known that he was a child molestor.
Actually, only the USCCB's John Jay report acknowledged the real problem: 82% of the cases were due to homosexuals in the priesthood. In the worst hit dioceses, that number is higher. The USCCB quietly buried those results.
No, the Church has not acknowledged the problem. They still have not admitted that they should not have started accepting (and in some dioceses recruiting) homosexual men to the priesthood. They still have not purged active homosexuals nor have they initiated any mechanism or policy to once again screen out homosexuals.
Haven't you heard - the Pope was Deep Throat.
See 31. The Church is still in denial at best, and covering its own butt at worst.
The Church may be "in denial," but if it is in denial, it is a denial that long predated JP II. I have yet to see any proof that the Pope doesn't have a conscience, which was your original charge. Nor any proof that the Pope appointed O'Connell with knowledge of O'Connell's misconduct.
"Do you think that JPI was a mistaken choice and he was called home by God to give the conclave another chance to pick the right one?"
Pope JP I was victim of a Popacide = "arkancide".
I think what needs to be proven is that he does have a conscience. I have given you examples of why I doubt that. As you well know I'm sure, negatives cannot be proven. Thus the burden of proof is on the positive assertion, in this case, that he does have a conscience.
No one's asking you to prove a negative. Do you have any proof that the Pope knew of O'Connell's misdeeds when he made him a bishop? That he had anything at all to do with the travails of your priest friend? Those are the only things you've pointed to to suggest that John Paul II has no conscience.
As for proof that he does have a conscience, I think his consistent and outspoken defense of human life, his opposition to Communism both before and after he became Pope (an opposition that probably was behind an attempt on his life), the way he forgave his assailant, and the way he treated Jews after WWII (there is testimony that he saved the life of a survivor of the camps) all suggest that he has a conscience, as does his transparent deep devotion to God.
Well, I disagree. I think the behavior concerning the Iraq war and the molestation scandal is consistent with a corrupt and idolatrous mindset and not of a man of conscience. The things he has done in the past are very admirable, but the things he has done recently are not. I'll grant he had a conscience once, but if he's had one on this side of the millenium there's scant evidence for it.
"In other words, no resignation is forthcoming. After all, if he had a conscience, he'd have long since purged the child molestors out of the Church, and shown moral support for the just war against Saddam."
My sentiments, exactly. Well said.
I read an intriguing book some years back, "The Murder of Pope John Paul the First." There were some fascinating questions raised, and some very compelling logic, along with a number of "coincidences" involving untimely deaths of some who may have been able to shed light on the situation. Was it murder, who knows? Little late to say now, but the author certainly made a plausible case. JPI, according to his closest friends, was certainly inclined to bring about changes in the Church, including divesting the Vatican of a great deal of it's wealth. When money is involved, it tends to bring out the worst in even the best of men.
Scorpy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.