You wrote:
“I’m not asserting anything about the pope, other than that he should be accountable, as any other human being, for any role he may have had in a failure to shepherd and protect God’s people.”
All the evidence is rather clear that he had no role in any failure to shepherd and protect God’s people.
“I would trust the pope would try and be like Jesus, and not “hide” behind his office/position.”
He’s not hiding. He is merely leading his flock. Since he did nothing wrong, he has nothing to answer for. Case closed.
“You are the one asserting things which you cannot possibly know...so do you have evidence the pope is an exception to what the Scriptures teach about every man (barring Jesus)?”
No. But ALL the evidence clearly shows he NEVER acted improperly in any of the two or three cases that are now being deliberately distorted by liberals and their dimwitted anti-Catholic allies. Thus, after more than 30 years under microscopic inspection by liberals, they, and you, have come up with exactly squat. Remember, THIRTY years and nada, nothing - or as the pope would say in his upper Bavarian dialecht - gar nichts. Absolutely NOTHING.
Jesus was sinless. The pope isn’t. Jesus was innocent. And apparently so is the pope.
So what’s the harm in the pope answering questions, if there’s nothing to hide?
And if the pope/bishops are leading/protecting their flock they should defrock, not re-assign priests who sodomize or otherwise sexually abuse parishioners.
Protect the flock - DEFROCK!
From the AP:
“...Two Wisconsin bishops urged the Vatican office led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — to let them conduct a church trial against a priest accused of molesting some 200 deaf boys, but the Vatican ordered the process halted, church and Vatican documents show.
Despite the grave allegations, Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ruled that the alleged molestation had occurred too long ago and the accused priest, Rev. Lawrence Murphy, should instead repent and be restricted from celebrating Mass outside of his diocese.
The New York Times broke the story Thursday, adding fuel to an already swirling scandal about the way the Vatican in general, and Benedict in particular, have handled reports of priests raping children over the years...”
You stated: “No. But ALL the evidence clearly shows he NEVER acted improperly in any of the two or three cases that are now being deliberately distorted by liberals and their dimwitted anti-Catholic allies. Thus, after more than 30 years under microscopic inspection by liberals, they, and you, have come up with exactly squat. Remember, THIRTY years and nada, nothing - or as the pope would say in his upper Bavarian dialecht - gar nichts. Absolutely NOTHING.”
What evidence? The church/Vatican have been HIDING behind secret councils for years, and asking for/claiming immunity as well:
From the AP in 2005:
The U.S. government has told a Texas court that Pope Benedict XVI should be given immunity from a lawsuit accusing him of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian, court documents show.
“There was no immediate ruling from Judge Lee Rosenthal of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston, who has been presiding over the case. However, the Supreme Court has held that U.S. courts are bound by such ‘suggestion of immunity’ motions submitted by the government, Keisler’s filing says.”
And in 2001:
“The lawsuit cites a May 18, 2001, letter from Ratzinger, written in Latin to bishops around the world, explaining that “grave” crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors would be handled by his congregation and that the proceedings of special church tribunals handling the cases were subject to ‘pontifical secret.’”
Previously in 1994:
“A 1994 lawsuit against Pope John Paul II, also filed in Texas, was dismissed after the U.S. government filed a similar motion.”
So perhaps you should change your NO evidence to SUPPRESSED evidence.
BTW, if you think I have been pursuing this for 30 years, that I am a liberal, or a dim witted anti-Catholic, then you really are misinformed. However, I think you are just using that as a rhetorical device.
I have been too busy enjoying the life God gave me and trying to find ways to serve Him (when I am walking as I should) to have any real interest in what the “pope” is doing or not doing.