Posted on 04/10/2010 11:49:41 PM PDT by Steelfish
April 11, 2010 Richard Dawkins: I Will Arrest Pope Benedict XVI Marc Horne
Atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.
Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.
The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.
The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed arguing that the “good of the universal church” should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Its seriously time for some crusading. I might be getting old but I can still kick a$$.
“As unspeakable as a pope ignoring complaints of sexual abuse by a priest?”
It wasn’t the Pope, it was the bishops.
Do you always believe the terrorists’ tip sheet, the NYTimes?
The bishops in the U.S. were wrong (& naive) to cover up, but the Pope was NEVER involved in any kind of cover up. On the contrary, Pope Benedict has been very tough on cracking down on the priest abuse scandals, and has a zero tolerance policy. Other religions use the Pope’s protocol as a model.
It’s been banned.
What’s been banned?
big tent and another Dawkins lover. I don’t recall the screen name but you’ll come across it soon.
Thank you, I should have guessed. :)
btw, this from a link by another poster, but I can’t remember his user name:
“This past weekend, the AP thought they had found the smoking gun: a 1985 letter bearing Ratzinger’s signature purportedly stalling the laicization of a priest. The AP got the story all wrong.
Turns out the facts of the case exonerate Ratzinger entirely. For the record, Cardinal Ratzinger did not have authority over sex abuse cases until 2001. This case occurred in the late 80’s. The rule of thumb on all these stories is that the local bishop is the first person responsible for punishing priestly offenders and the one charged with protecting his flock from these menaces.
To imagine the Pope has the ability or the manpower to police the actions of every cleric around the globe is a child’s delusion. If he could do you actually think there would be so many liturgical abuses throughout the Church? “
http://www.ewtn.com/news/blog.asp?blog_ID=2
The NYTimes is playing a gullible public like a fiddle.
I’m even hearing talk show hosts quoting the AP story without bothering to get both sides. Sad.
And you’re a troll. No believing Catholic would ever call Dawkins a great writer and applaud his actions.
I’ve noticed you before and you are a liar and a troll.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I'm late to this thread - haven't read many comments yet. Another example of people who hate the Catholic Church and if they actually cared about homosexuals molesting youth they'd speak out about NAMBLA, Kevin Jennings, GLSEN, schoolteachers molesting kids, the homosexual agenda pushing homosexuals adopting and fostering children, etc etc etc.
But no, they target the Catholic Church only. Because despite its imperfections, it's holding to tight to traditional aka "real" moral absolutes.
Wow - big tent bit the dust! And I missed the fun.
big tent is banned.
Don’t leave FR.
That difference is what constitutes a very valuable rule on the Religion Forum. Some learn the rule and abide by it, and others don't. It's not a terribly difficult rule to follow and it actually makes a person's argument stronger. RCs would benefit by learning to obey the rules.
Thank you, Sun, for posting the facts. Some people just aren’t interested in them!
No, some people are more interested in their agendas than truth.
What hurts, though, is that even some “conservatives” believe the first thing they hear, and don’t have the ambition to get both sides of a story, even if it’s from LMSM. You would think they would know better.
I’m not a Catholic either but I see the CC as a stalwart fighter against the evils of which leftists are not only enamored, but hold as foundational tenets of their - hmm - religion.
I’ve wanted it banned ever since I first saw it.
This is right on! Also Hitchens does have himself a homosexual past.
Sigh, who to side with - a misotheist or a child molestation enabler.
I think I’ll just sit it out and let them have at each other.
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.