Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Richard Dawkins: I Will Arrest Pope Benedict XVI
London Times ^ | April 10th 2010 | Marc Horne

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: atheisthate; atheists; attentionwhore; dawkins; hitchens; nutjob; popebenedictxvi; richarddawkins; scientism; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 641-657 next last
To: Melian

Beautifully said. Thank you.

I strongly agree that the dust-up against the pope is about abortion. Whenever the church speaks strongly on the subject, the left dusts off the molestation cases and tries to get some more mileage out of them. In addition to the baby-killers lashing out, though, are the queers. They use the opportunity to pile on their anti-Christian hatred.


481 posted on 04/12/2010 12:57:16 AM PDT by chilltherats (First, kill all the lawyers (now that they ARE the tyrants).......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

I think it’s funny whenever divergent forces that would hate each other both hate a common scapegoat.

Nazis and Black Power Radicals both hating Jews for example.


482 posted on 04/12/2010 1:07:27 AM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN | NO "INDIVIDUAL MANDATE"!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: big tent
No, he won’t arrest him, you can’t, he is a head of state. But he is not a good man, and not deserving of the title of Pope.

It appears that the Holy Spirit, would disagree with you

483 posted on 04/12/2010 2:27:37 AM PDT by verga (I am not an apologist, I just play one on Television)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: verga
It appears that the Holy Spirit, would disagree with you

My question is specific to these words. How does one know if 'whatever' is from the Holy Spirit?

484 posted on 04/12/2010 2:31:04 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Okay, if you want to indulge, let’s get back to the old issue that Steelfish and I discussed a couple of weeks ago:

1 Samuel 15: 3.

I don’t see any good in the act that is ordered in this verse. What is your take? (the replies in the other threads weren’t convincing enough, but rather, highly indulgent in excuse-making for mandated ritual child-slaughter).


485 posted on 04/12/2010 4:17:03 AM PDT by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Methinks you underestimate or mischaracterize the LOVE OF GOD.

Methinks you mischaracterize (or else simply misread, outright) my simple, straightforward response to a troll whose FR account has, quite rightly, been suspended. ;)

486 posted on 04/12/2010 4:47:19 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle (http://www.conservatives4palin.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

It’s spelled “sieg.”


487 posted on 04/12/2010 4:57:18 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: metmom

The reason was that they were not keeping their promise to remain continent even while married. So they were told not to marry at all.

Continence within marriage was the norm from the apostolic period onward, based on Jesus’ and Paul’s words.

The Orthodox relaxed the discipline around 700. The claim that Paphnutius stood up at the Council of Nicea to assert that married priests originally were permitted marital relations with their wives has been shown to have been invented around 700.

There’s no evidence that married priests ever were permitted to have sexual relations after ordination.


488 posted on 04/12/2010 5:32:25 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The simplest and most practical reason is that no pastor can be truly free to do the Lord's work if he has a family. With his time divided between his family and his flock, inevitably conflict will arise.

Which is not to say raising a family is not God's work, too, just that attempting to do both is a herculean task, for no man can serve two masters.

489 posted on 04/12/2010 5:35:18 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: GCC Catholic
But Jesus was unmarried, we have no certainty that Peter's wife was alive by the time of the Gospel, and then there is the whole issue of becoming "a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom" among others.

Yeah? So? That's really irrelevant. By that reasoning, everyone who is a believer should remain or become single.

Besides, Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and in Acts, some years later, Paul refers to Peter having a wife.

I Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

Besides, What's the big deal about priests remaining unmarried? God never demanded that of the Jewish priests who served in His temple. Jesus never taught it in Scripture. It doesn't make any sense that they'd be better priests if they remained single. There are plenty of successful ministers and missionaries who serve God who are married. It didn't interfere with their ability to minister.

My argument with it isn't that the Catholic Church doesn't have a right to decide that for themselves, but that they don't have any good reason for it because there's no Scriptural precedent for it and it's putting a burden on those men that they don't need to bear.

490 posted on 04/12/2010 5:46:29 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: verga

It appears that the mods do too.


491 posted on 04/12/2010 5:48:46 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

The family is not a *master* That quote is in regards to money, not family. Again, plenty of protestant ministers have very successful ministries while married. That argument about being better able to serve God may be a rationalization, but it doesn’t hold water.

OTOH, there is no wife alongside him to take care of his needs, so it is up to him to do all the things that a wife could and would help out with, helping around the house, cooking meals, doing laundry, providing a sounding board and emotional support.

Clearly the no wife thing isn’t working out so well these days judging by the lack of numbers of men interested in joining the priesthood.


492 posted on 04/12/2010 5:54:21 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: caww
My take is very few were until I see evidence otherwise.

That is my impression as well. I thought it might in some way be because of their confessional system, but apparently that is not the case.

493 posted on 04/12/2010 6:25:17 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: metmom
But that decision was made a long time ago and before this stuff came out in the open.

My mistake.

494 posted on 04/12/2010 6:29:44 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: GCC Catholic

Happy to be corrected.

What’s the bit about the black Pope and his being evil from? I didn’t draw it out of thin air.


495 posted on 04/12/2010 6:39:00 AM PDT by Quix (BLOKES who got us where we R: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Even IF, I am not tossing out my faith.

This seems to be a pretty common position that RC's take. Why is defense of your church defense of your faith?

Namely, to remove the last bastion of opposition to their own pet perversions, ones which other Churches have 'compromised' on, but the Catholic Church has not.

I think love of your church may have altered your perception. All the great life issues we agree about really don't get supported by your church when the big political forces get involved.

One example would be obama visiting Notre Dame. A group of committed pro-life RC's protested, but the support was for obama. Another example would be politicians who regularly support pro-abortion policies and are never publicly excommunicated. A final example would be Teddy Kennedy's funeral. If ever a politician existed who was more pro-abortion I've yet to see him, but he sure did get a fancy in church funeral.

IOW, there are some very serious pro-life supporters in your church, but relying on the RCC as an ally is questionable.

496 posted on 04/12/2010 6:42:58 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: metmom

And the Lord’s

BROTHERS . . .

. . . there’s that pesky BROTHERS, again!

That BIBLICAL assertion, distinction, classification will simply not go away! HE HE.

. . . except in the minds of those with the ‘authority’ to erase God’s Words.

It’s alsmost like that verse was anticipating the RELIGIOUS hogwash of a certain edifice.


497 posted on 04/12/2010 6:47:24 AM PDT by Quix (BLOKES who got us where we R: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Not in American. LOL


498 posted on 04/12/2010 6:48:19 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

No problem. :)


499 posted on 04/12/2010 6:53:21 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Quix

If the Catholic Church wrote the Bible as they claim they did, why’d they include, or not eliminate pesky verses that refer to things that they say didn’t happen?


500 posted on 04/12/2010 6:55:07 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 641-657 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson