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 ...
I hope a Swiss Guardsman splits Dawkins from crown to navel with his halberd.
Just a little side note. :)
That is awesome!!!!!
Nothing like the power of the Gospel to overcome islam, contrary to what some people believe.....
“NO ONE LOVES YOU OR EVER WILL”
is pretty straight forward English that
sounds
pretty all inclusive, to me.
INDEED.
. . . uhhh . . .
because . . . uhhh . . . their editing OF ALMIGHTY GOD is not any more thorough or rational than their theology?
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! PRAISE GOD!
Ah. There's your problem, then.
Of course it was the pope for allowing the bishops to aid and cover for the priests...And some of the bishops were guilty of the crimes as well...
Normally, folks who don’t wish or mean to use all inclusive language,
. . .
don’t.
Because it is the Church, and even with all its historical failings, it is the vehicle which has brought even the Protestant churches into being. Otherwise, (had it been God's will), the last Christian would have been lion food in Rome.
You can claim that defending your home is not the same as defending your family, but without that structure, that defense of your family becomes far more problematical.
You do a great job of jumping topics, so why don't you get all of them out and we can deal with them at once.
First, in the matter of the abortionists out there, be it Teddy, or whomever, I have no, nor do I claim to have any knowledge of whether they repented in the last few seconds of their life. The status of their souls is between them and God, and not for me to judge. I can find their actions during their lives to be reprehensible, but my opinion does not weigh in the final judgement which remains between them and God.
So they got a big 'sendoff', one which comes with money and power, much the same as any other funeral for the wealthy or powerful, (those who can afford a nice box covered with flowers often go the extra mile), but will that make any difference in their destination? As I said, that is between them and God.
When Obama visited (spoke at) Notre Dame, I protested, as did many. But the presence of a head of state speaking there did not set Church policy toward abortion, nor did it change it.
Excommunication is a process undertaken above my pay grade. Those who openly support abortion in public office fool no one by making nominal claims to be Catholic. Their actions speak louder than their words. I do not defend them any more than a pedophile, but you would have me discard the entire institution over the actions of a few.
Again, you would have me abandon my faith, my church, the church of my ancestors for a thousand plus years over the actions of a few sinners I don't even know, personally?
No. No more than I would abandon the Republic because those in power have abused and distorted it. If there are problems, they can be fixed. That that may not be a fast-moving process may grieve some, but it is the very resistance to change with whim which makes either what it is.
What, if anything, do you believe in? Or do you readily abandon anything and everything when there is a problem?
I have a job which demands my absolute attention when I am working. I have a family. Conflict for my attention is inevitable. When I am trying to take care of both, neither gets done to my standards.
Anyone who does not think a family is a master, either never had a three year old, or does not understand that even a king is slave to his kingdom.
It is that responsibility which dictates the behaviour of the individual.
Without the conflict of familial needs, the priest is free to assist whomever, whenever.
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.
When there is only one, there is not that much laundry, not that much to cook, etc. If you live humbly, you don't need much help.
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.
As opposed to what? Granted, the priesthood may not be as lucrative as some ministries, but better to store up treasures in heaven. Not everyone would agree with that, and I think that has an effect.
Frankly, there are fewer men interested in marriage, too, and half of those end up divorced.
When marriage and the traditional family are under attack by the same people who attack the priesthood, it amazes me that there are those who adopt some of the attacker's arguments against one but rail against the attackers on the other.
I do not see those attacks as separate entities, but part of a concerted effort to tear down the moral fabric of our society. How long would it be before we would be reading of scandals involving infidelity, divorce, etc. in the priesthood if marriage was permitted? Those who abstain never have one too many, by definition.
What those who are not called to the priesthood can see as a source of strength and assistance only provides a weaker front in the world of spiritual warfare.
Of course, the incessant attacks on the Church, especially the priesthood, in the MSM would disincline most anyone toward the vocation which the MSM is trying to paint as pedophillic. The attacks have been going on for years, but lately have reached a fever pitch.
Why? because the Church will still not yield to what the secular humanists think it should be/do/embrace, namely abortion, homosexuality in the ordained ministry (still a sin, and NOT ok), and homosexual 'marriage'. When the rules are set by God, no secular entity can claim priority, nor can the 'if it feels good do it' crowd change the rules to suit their whim.
Overall, church attendance has been in decline whether it be Catholic or Protestant, and the broad media based secular attacks on Christianity (direct and indirect) have doubtless been a contributor to that.
Bored now.
Evidently, you're spoiling for an online scuffle of some sort of another, for some irrational quasi-reason(s) falling, happily, neither within the spheres of my interest or my responsibility. I, in turn, simply decline to play along.
Sorry you find yourself so needlessly and inexplicably agitated, so early this A.M. Mary Poppins always says "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down"... so: I recommend some morning chocolate, by way of anodyne. ;)
LOL.
I am considering waking up shortly.
Amen
I was pretty excited too!
Announced today Bishops to report crimes to police....
VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican responded Monday to allegations that it had concealed years of clerical sex abuse by making it clear for the first time that bishops and other high-ranking clerics should report such crimes to police if required by law.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/12/vatican-makes-clear-bishops-must-report-sex-abuse/#ixzz0ktq4r1fQ
I would never ask you to abandon your faith if it is in Jesus Christ. It seems that any disagreement with your church is then considered an attack on your faith. It really isn't.
You do a great job of jumping topics, so why don't you get all of them out and we can deal with them at once.
Actually no. Every time the response of your church to clergy molesting young boys and girls is discussed the reaction that the faith of RC's is being attacked comes up. It is a unique response in the Christian community. We are not in a heated discussion about systematic theology, but any disagreement is treated as such.
What, if anything, do you believe in?
I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe Jesus saw my fallen state and died for my sins. I believe Jesus was buried and on the third day rose again and because of His sacrifice for me I am saved.
A church is a gathering of "called out ones" it is where we come together it is not our faith.
I heard that, it's a great way to find the criminals and see that they are punished. It would be easy to throw in some cheap shots, but they're doing the right thing and that's really what's important.
From Scripture alone, at best one can claim that it's inconclusive. The Corinthians verse need not be referring to a 'wife' but rather is equally well translated as 'sister'; i.e. a fellow sister in Christ. St. Paul DID exhort others to remain single as he was, provided that they could do so without falling into lust.
It is worth noting that the Catholic Church DOES allow married priests in the Eastern Rites, and even has allowed some married men to be ordained or (if validly ordained) to participate in priestly ministry in the Latin Rite, albeit as an exception, not the rule.
Jesus never taught it in Scripture.
Yes he did. Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom - even though its scope does actually reach beyond priesthood. St. Paul echoed that teaching only two chapters earlier than your quote in I Cor. 7.
There are plenty of successful ministers and missionaries who serve God who are married. It didn't interfere with their ability to minister.
Nonsense. It hinders where they can go, what they can do, and how much they can risk in where they go as missionaries. Go read the stories of the Jesuit martyrs in North America (Sts. Jean de Brebeuf, Isaac Jogues, and companions) - I would be shocked if many married missionaries would be willing to take the risks that they did and that ultimately lead to their martyrdom - in fact, doing so would be a negligence toward wife and children. As St. Paul teaches in I Cor. 7, the unmarried are free to pursue the things of God without restriction, while the married must be about the business of their spouse and children.
Even if there were no Scriptural precedent (which I contend that there actually is), the practical fact that a married priest is forced to split his loyalties between his flock and his family would be sufficient to have such a discipline. No man is forced to become a priest - so there is no issue of "putting a burden on those men that they don't need to bear."
Celibacy provides a genuine freedom to be about the things of God, and God offers the Grace necessary to live the celibate life. The seminarian is given due time to discern the celibate state and is given formation in seminary to help him live that life well - I know that, because that is the life that I am living, and if God wills me to be a priest, a celibate life will be in my future.
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.