It seems that with his resignation announced, the Pope, whose given name is Joseph Ratzinger, has a meeting with the Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano on February 23 to beg for immunity against prosecution for allegations of child sex crimes. Apparently, this hastily arranged meeting, and likely the resignation as well, are the result of a supposed note received by the Vatican from an undisclosed European government that stated that there are plans to issue a warrant for the Pope’s arrest.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/14/pope-allegedly-sought-immunity-for-abuse-crimes-just-before-resigning/

Makes sense to me. The Pope has already played the 'head of state' card as I mentioned earlier... It's not that he got away with it but rather that it was not challenged and I can't see it standing up in court if it came to it. This issue would drag Italy somewhere it would rather not be, because an EU arrest warrent would be issued which Italy couldn't just sweep under the carpet. Keep a look out for the following address..

Ecuador Embassy , Vatican

Via di Porta Angelica 63

00193

Rome

Italy

The best the Vatican could do for it's image is to follow suit as the USA and appoint a black pope.

Better still come out the closet and appoint a gay pope.

Even better still a black, gay pope!

It seems that with his resignation announced, the Pope, whose given name is Joseph Ratzinger, has a meeting with the Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano on February 23 to beg for immunity against prosecution for allegations of child sex crimes. Apparently, this hastily arranged meeting, and likely the resignation as well, are the result of a supposed note received by the Vatican from an undisclosed European government that stated that there are plans to issue a warrant for the Pope’s arrest.

= a load of pure refined horseshit!

The best the Vatican could do for it's image is to follow suit as the USA and appoint a black pope.

Better still come out the closet and appoint a gay pope.

Even better still a black, gay pope!

my choice: a black, gay and jewish chap

The best the Vatican could do for it's image is to follow suit as the USA and appoint a black pope.

Better still come out the closet and appoint a gay pope.

Even better still a black, gay pope!

my choice: a black, gay and jewish chap

Not forgetting HER family have been through genocide and she has one leg because of a landmine incident in Iraq

It seems that with his resignation announced, the Pope, whose given name is Joseph Ratzinger, has a meeting with the Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano on February 23 to beg for immunity against prosecution for allegations of child sex crimes. Apparently, this hastily arranged meeting, and likely the resignation as well, are the result of a supposed note received by the Vatican from an undisclosed European government that stated that there are plans to issue a warrant for the Pope’s arrest.

= a load of pure refined horseshit!

Could well be and this idea is just a best case scenario. There has been evidence to indite the Pope for years, enough to fill a Mack truck, it has not been done but it will be done at some stage. What do you think will happen if an EU arrest warrant is issued without the protection of a valid international recognized state? Or an ICC warrant?

The best the Vatican could do for it's image is to follow suit as the USA and appoint a black pope.

Better still come out the closet and appoint a gay pope.

Even better still a black, gay pope!

You seem to know remarkably little of the Christian churches in Africa.

They are wholly opposed to sexual deviant practices and speak with one voice on this matter, as do serious Muslim clerics.

The next Pope will be Italian - neither of the previous two were from this very powerful group - I cannot see them allowing another foreigner to lead the Roman Catholic Church.

sexual deviant practices

7) Not to post slurs or degrading comments directed towards any group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

sexual deviant practices

7) Not to post slurs or degrading comments directed towards any group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Yes...its the confession box for Humphrey!

Popey's last week is very busy! Humor alert.

Feb. 22. Flan non est acceptabilis mensa secundia (flan is not an acceptable dessert).

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/low_concept/2013/02/new_saints_and_decrees_from_lame_duck_pope_benedict.html

The best the Vatican could do for it's image is to follow suit as the USA and appoint a black pope.

Better still come out the closet and appoint a gay pope.

Even better still a black, gay pope!

You seem to know remarkably little of the Christian churches in Africa.

They are wholly opposed to sexual deviant practices and speak with one voice on this matter, as do serious Muslim clerics.

The next Pope will be Italian - neither of the previous two were from this very powerful group - I cannot see them allowing another foreigner to lead the Roman Catholic Church.

The best the Vatican could do for it's image is to follow suit as the USA and appoint a black pope.

Better still come out the closet and appoint a gay pope.

Even better still a black, gay pope!

You seem to know remarkably little of the Christian churches in Africa.

They are wholly opposed to sexual deviant practices and speak with one voice on this matter, as do serious Muslim clerics.

The next Pope will be Italian - neither of the previous two were from this very powerful group - I cannot see them allowing another foreigner to lead the Roman Catholic Church.

Actually i am an authority on African Christian Church's having spent a gap year at one in Uganda and i can safely say that a black, gay pope is the answer to the Catholic Church's problems.

sexual deviant practices

7) Not to post slurs or degrading comments directed towards any group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

No if's or but's.

Yes...its the confession box for Humphrey!

Popey's last week is very busy! Humor alert.

Feb. 22. Flan non est acceptabilis mensa secundia (flan is not an acceptable dessert).

http://www.slate.com...e_benedict.html

In the same way as panini is not an acceptable sandwich. I am with the pope on this and willing to offer a high five to the new incumbent.

sexual deviant practices

7) Not to post slurs or degrading comments directed towards any group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

until today the expression "deviant" is not derogatory because some sexual orientations are indeed not conform with "accepted standards/norms" e.g. an adult having sex with a minor, which in some countries is "statutory rape" but in other countries a "done thing".

sexual deviant practices

7) Not to post slurs or degrading comments directed towards any group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

until today the expression "deviant" is not derogatory because some sexual orientations are indeed not conform with "accepted standards/norms" e.g. an adult having sex with a minor, which in some countries is "statutory rape" but in other countries a "done thing".

Interesting comment. I suppose there is a consideration that paedophilia is a sexual orientation yet i feel it wasn't considered when making these rules.

sexual deviant practices

7) Not to post slurs or degrading comments directed towards any group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

until today the expression "deviant" is not derogatory because some sexual orientations are indeed not conform with "accepted standards/norms" e.g. an adult having sex with a minor, which in some countries is "statutory rape" but in other countries a "done thing".

Which is precisely why I used the phrase.

Most regulars on this forum will know my views anyway, but in my personal opinion an act which is practised by less than one half of one percent (UK figure when discussing marriage changes) is a deviant from the norm.

Not derogatory, purely astatement of fact.

Which is precisely why I used the phrase.

Most regulars on this forum will know my views anyway, but in my personal opinion an act which is practised by less than one half of one percent (UK figure when discussing marriage changes) is a deviant from the norm.

Not derogatory, purely astatement of fact.

Are you willing to use the same argument for 'bigot'

Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Not derogatory, purely astatement of fact.

It seems that with his resignation announced, the Pope, whose given name is Joseph Ratzinger, has a meeting with the Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano on February 23 to beg for immunity against prosecution for allegations of child sex crimes. Apparently, this hastily arranged meeting, and likely the resignation as well, are the result of a supposed note received by the Vatican from an undisclosed European government that stated that there are plans to issue a warrant for the Pope’s arrest.

= a load of pure refined horseshit!

Could well be and this idea is just a best case scenario. There has been evidence to indite the Pope for years, enough to fill a Mack truck, it has not been done but it will be done at some stage. What do you think will happen if an EU arrest warrant is issued without the protection of a valid international recognized state? Or an ICC warrant?

an arrest warrant for the Pope because some catholic priest somewhere molested a child? gimme a break! that's like an arrest warrant for David Cameron or the Queen because an old Brit gave a blowjob to a 14-year old boy in Pattaya.

by the way, the Vatican IS an internationally recognised state!

It seems that with his resignation announced, the Pope, whose given name is Joseph Ratzinger, has a meeting with the Italian President, Giorgio Napolitano on February 23 to beg for immunity against prosecution for allegations of child sex crimes. Apparently, this hastily arranged meeting, and likely the resignation as well, are the result of a supposed note received by the Vatican from an undisclosed European government that stated that there are plans to issue a warrant for the Pope’s arrest.

= a load of pure refined horseshit!

Could well be and this idea is just a best case scenario. There has been evidence to indite the Pope for years, enough to fill a Mack truck, it has not been done but it will be done at some stage. What do you think will happen if an EU arrest warrant is issued without the protection of a valid international recognized state? Or an ICC warrant?

an arrest warrant for the Pope because some catholic priest somewhere molested a child? gimme a break! that's like an arrest warrant for David Cameron or the Queen because an old Brit gave a blowjob to a 14-year old boy in Pattaya.

by the way, the Vatican IS an internationally recognised state!

Thank you, Naam, for holding up to ridicule the suggestion that Benedict XVI can, or could, be prosecuted for not taking quick enough or firm enough action against paedophiles. He may have some responsibility in a moral sense, but not in law.

The paedophile scandal first came to light in a big way towards the end of John Paul II's papacy. John Paul was a very sick man, and let it lie.... on Cardinal Ratzinger's desk. The latter at that stage knew more about it than anybody, because he had reports from several dioceses. When he was chosen as the next Pope, he is known to have been unwilling, but I suppose he regarded it as his duty to accept the papacy.

Then what did he do? I think most people will agree, not enough Two American cardinals lost their jobs, but one, bizarrely, will still be in the conclave to elect Benedict's successor.

One thing people seem reluctant to realise is that it is a Christian belief that repentance is possible even at the very last moment (cf. the thief on the Cross). As a priest, it was Benedict's duty to see that the delinquent priests were given every last chance for repentance. Benedict had to act according to the beliefs of his Church.

This put him in a very difficult position in the face of those crying for the blood of the delinquents, especially those who did not share his beliefs. It is easy to call for them to be punished severely.... but the chance for last-minute repentance must be kept open.

Many of you think this is all nonsense. I understand that..... but you are not in a position to judge Benedict's actions unless you take into account his beliefs. My personal feeling is that there are two reasons why he took less action than he might have done; the first is given above, the second was his age, and failing energy and health.

For those not burdened with the magical "thinking" of religious faith, yes it is total nonsense. Church people should not be above the laws of their lands and those criminal suspects should not be protected by church leaders. That's some SENSE for you.

For those not burdened with the magical "thinking" of religious faith, yes it is total nonsense. Church people should not be above the laws of their lands and those criminal suspects should not be protected by church leaders. That's some SENSE for you.

I think what should be grasped by church leaders is that the perpetrators of such crimes are not men of God, no matter the colour of their cloth.

I think what should be grasped by church leaders is that the perpetrators of such crimes are not men of God, no matter the colour of their cloth.

True, Smokie... but they still have a chance of forgiveness.

But do you think either the church leaders or the paedophiles would stand any chance of a fair trial? The outcry against them is very much like mob law, and a lynch mob at that.

"I ain't seen one good lynchin' in years!"

On this same line of thinking isnt going to trial, and being put behind bars for a period of time considered justice served and therefore forgiveness earned. At the higher levels I am sure the church believes keeping the offenders close at hand within the walls of the vatican is much the same a being sentenced to jail and after time served forgiveness is in order.

an arrest warrant for the Pope because some catholic priest somewhere molested a child? gimme a break! that's like an arrest warrant for David Cameron or the Queen because an old Brit gave a blowjob to a 14-year old boy in Pattaya.

Thank you, Naam, for holding up to ridicule the suggestion that Benedict XVI can, or could, be prosecuted for not taking quick enough or firm enough action against paedophiles. He may have some responsibility in a moral sense, but not in law.

can, or could, be prosecuted for not taking quick enough or firm enough action against paedophiles

what? [/facepalm]

Harboring a known criminal would be first on the list because there is no way he could worm his way out of it.

The penalty under Roman law for harboring a known criminal was crucification BTW

an arrest warrant for the Pope because some catholic priest somewhere molested a child? gimme a break! that's like an arrest warrant for David Cameron or the Queen because an old Brit gave a blowjob to a 14-year old boy in Pattaya.

Thank you, Naam, for holding up to ridicule the suggestion that Benedict XVI can, or could, be prosecuted for not taking quick enough or firm enough action against paedophiles. He may have some responsibility in a moral sense, but not in law.

can, or could, be prosecuted for not taking quick enough or firm enough action against paedophiles

what? [/facepalm]

Harboring a known criminal would be first on the list because there is no way he could worm his way out of it.

The penalty under Roman law for harboring a known criminal was crucification BTW

Remind me.... which known criminal?

As an aside, this whole affair has strange echoes of Thomas a Becket and the criminous clerks.

Thank you, Naam, for holding up to ridicule the suggestion that Benedict XVI can, or could, be prosecuted for not taking quick enough or firm enough action against paedophiles. He may have some responsibility in a moral sense, but not in law.

The paedophile scandal first came to light in a big way towards the end of John Paul II's papacy. John Paul was a very sick man, and let it lie.... on Cardinal Ratzinger's desk. The latter at that stage knew more about it than anybody, because he had reports from several dioceses. When he was chosen as the next Pope, he is known to have been unwilling, but I suppose he regarded it as his duty to accept the papacy.

Then what did he do? I think most people will agree, not enough Two American cardinals lost their jobs, but one, bizarrely, will still be in the conclave to elect Benedict's successor.

One thing people seem reluctant to realise is that it is a Christian belief that repentance is possible even at the very last moment (cf. the thief on the Cross). As a priest, it was Benedict's duty to see that the delinquent priests were given every last chance for repentance. Benedict had to act according to the beliefs of his Church.

Surely the subject of paedophilia in the Catholic Church has been known for generations? This didn't just 'come to light' in the seventies, this was the time that the mass media first had the idea of exposing the practice, as a part of the 'luvvie' sect's determination to break down society as it has been established in the Western world. Before that it was swept under the carpet by said society as 'a sin without a name'. Which meant that it could proceed uninterrupted by any condemnation from society.

Since the legalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults in 1956 (in the UK) there has been an attempt to differentiate between homosexuality and paedophilia by the media - whereas the assault on small boys by adults (whether priest or layman) is still a homosexual act - it may also be a paedophilic act but it is same sex still. Just another facet of an 'abomination', as stated in Leviticus.

This should be condemned loudly by all Christian churches, if they believe that the societal laws in the Bible are still just and justified. Otherwise toss out the Bible and stop calling themselves Christian.

Thank you, Naam, for holding up to ridicule the suggestion that Benedict XVI can, or could, be prosecuted for not taking quick enough or firm enough action against paedophiles. He may have some responsibility in a moral sense, but not in law.

The paedophile scandal first came to light in a big way towards the end of John Paul II's papacy. John Paul was a very sick man, and let it lie.... on Cardinal Ratzinger's desk. The latter at that stage knew more about it than anybody, because he had reports from several dioceses. When he was chosen as the next Pope, he is known to have been unwilling, but I suppose he regarded it as his duty to accept the papacy.

Then what did he do? I think most people will agree, not enough Two American cardinals lost their jobs, but one, bizarrely, will still be in the conclave to elect Benedict's successor.

One thing people seem reluctant to realise is that it is a Christian belief that repentance is possible even at the very last moment (cf. the thief on the Cross). As a priest, it was Benedict's duty to see that the delinquent priests were given every last chance for repentance. Benedict had to act according to the beliefs of his Church.

Surely the subject of paedophilia in the Catholic Church has been known for generations? This didn't just 'come to light' in the seventies, this was the time that the mass media first had the idea of exposing the practice, as a part of the 'luvvie' sect's determination to break down society as it has been established in the Western world. Before that it was swept under the carpet by said society as 'a sin without a name'. Which meant that it could proceed uninterrupted by any condemnation from society.

Since the legalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults in 1956 (in the UK) there has been an attempt to differentiate between homosexuality and paedophilia by the media - whereas the assault on small boys by adults (whether priest or layman) is still a homosexual act - it may also be a paedophilic act but it is same sex still. Just another facet of an 'abomination', as stated in Leviticus.

This should be condemned loudly by all Christian churches, if they believe that the societal laws in the Bible are still just and justified. Otherwise toss out the Bible and stop calling themselves Christian.

I don't have any religious beliefs myself, but I do think there is a trend towards over-zealous atheism among many lib-left secularists. It is indeed ironic that they go after the church with such ferocity, yet call it a witch-hunt when similar scandal hits their beloved BBC.

Thank you, Naam, for holding up to ridicule the suggestion that Benedict XVI can, or could, be prosecuted for not taking quick enough or firm enough action against paedophiles. He may have some responsibility in a moral sense, but not in law.

The paedophile scandal first came to light in a big way towards the end of John Paul II's papacy. John Paul was a very sick man, and let it lie.... on Cardinal Ratzinger's desk. The latter at that stage knew more about it than anybody, because he had reports from several dioceses. When he was chosen as the next Pope, he is known to have been unwilling, but I suppose he regarded it as his duty to accept the papacy.

Then what did he do? I think most people will agree, not enough Two American cardinals lost their jobs, but one, bizarrely, will still be in the conclave to elect Benedict's successor.

One thing people seem reluctant to realise is that it is a Christian belief that repentance is possible even at the very last moment (cf. the thief on the Cross). As a priest, it was Benedict's duty to see that the delinquent priests were given every last chance for repentance. Benedict had to act according to the beliefs of his Church.

Surely the subject of paedophilia in the Catholic Church has been known for generations? This didn't just 'come to light' in the seventies, this was the time that the mass media first had the idea of exposing the practice, as a part of the 'luvvie' sect's determination to break down society as it has been established in the Western world. Before that it was swept under the carpet by said society as 'a sin without a name'. Which meant that it could proceed uninterrupted by any condemnation from society.

Since the legalisation of homosexual acts between consenting adults in 1956 (in the UK) there has been an attempt to differentiate between homosexuality and paedophilia by the media - whereas the assault on small boys by adults (whether priest or layman) is still a homosexual act - it may also be a paedophilic act but it is same sex still. Just another facet of an 'abomination', as stated in Leviticus.

This should be condemned loudly by all Christian churches, if they believe that the societal laws in the Bible are still just and justified. Otherwise toss out the Bible and stop calling themselves Christian.

What are you on about? It sounds like you are trying to equate pedophilia with adult consensual homosexuality. Is that REALLY your opinion? If so, that's about as logical as equating pedophilia with adult consensual heterosexuality. Sex crimes against children happen with girl and boy victims. No doubt with the Catholic church it is mostly boys but in the wider world it is mostly girl victims.

" It sounds like you are trying to equate pedophilia with adult consensual homosexuality. Is that REALLY your opinion? If so, that's about as logical as equating pedophilia with adult consensual heterosexuality. Sex crimes against children happen with girl and boy victims. No doubt with the Catholic church it is mostly boys but in the wider world it is mostly girl victims." (quote from Jingthing)

Part of the reason for the increased concern with paedophilia in the Church (yes, mainly with teenage boys) is the change in attitudes towards the age of consent. While homosexual acts were criminal anyway, there wasn't all that distinction made between sex with a 14-year-old, and sex with a 20-year-old.

Fortuitously, I came across a passage today from Colm Toibin, an Irish gay writer born in 1955, and educated as a Catholic. The following are quoted from his account.

"Between the ages of 15 and 17, I went to a diocesan school run by priests, which had a seminary attached. From that time I know five priests who have been (accused of sexual crimes).

In the case of four of them, it never occurred to me when I first knew them that they were gay. Even with the fifth, it seemed an impossible idea. I believe that they joined the Church sincerely; perhaps the idea that they had no sexual interest in women made them feel they had a vocation..... there was no one to tell them otherwise; these things were not discussed.

It is probable that had they not been gay they would not have joined the seminary. When they joined the seminary, no one talked about homosexuality; in the society around them it was a great taboo, and still is. I know how long the evenings must have been for them. I know how long they must have denied it, and when they gave in to it, how afraid they must have been."

Maybe this quotation will help some people to be somewhat less condemnatory.

Pedophilia by definition means prepubescent victims. Not getting into the age of consent thing. It's probably too high in most countries but a line has to be drawn somewhere. The issue with priests and other authority figures is that they exploit their regal position which really makes these crimes much worse. I don't care if these sex abuser priests are repressed gay men or not. If they exploit their power to seduce underage victims, they should be prosecuted under the law like anyone else. I might have human compassion for them but that doesn't excuse their behavior.