The Cloyne Report & the Vatican.


Maybe we should classify the Vatican as a “rogue state”. America classifies states that support terrorism as rogue states. Is a state that supports and facilitates child rape any better?
 
Purple said:
Maybe we should classify the Vatican as a “rogue state”. America classifies states that support terrorism as rogue states. Is a state that supports and facilitates child rape any better?
Click to expand...

Well there might be no universally agreed definition of terrorism but the common definition includes violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror) that are perpetrated for religious […] goals.

While I currently hold the opinion that the Vatican is a criminal organisation most certainly the idea of declaring it a state sponsor of terrorism isn’t too far off.

Then again what do we expect from an organisation that is run by a war criminal who also allows mass murder in Africa by rejecting condoms and is known to shield other war criminals.

Don’t get me wrong if you want to believe in the religious brand that the Vatican is currently marketing, than that is fine, it’s your right to choose and practise your religion, but if your religion is engaging in criminal activity, than it’s no different than let’s say some other crackpot religions like the Koresh’s Branch Davidians and should be treated as such.

As long as massive amount of people still flock into the churches and don’t kick their cardinals out this is not going to change. It’s the church going folks that need to show that they believe in their own marketing book and change things. As long as criminals are allowed to hide within their organisations this is not going to change.

But in these times with the state sponsored fear of Muslims no state is going to take a firm stand against a western religion as powerful as the Vatican. The state has enough to do to make Muslims the buggy man, they can’t handle another one.
 
'Then again what do we expect from an organisation that is run by a war criminal who also allows mass murder in Africa by rejecting condoms and is known to shield other war criminals'.

You might want to re-evaluate your argument, mass murder by rejecting condoms??
 
TarfHead said:
Care to back that statement up ?
Click to expand...
TarfHead said:
When exactly was the Pope convicted of a war crime ?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately he hasn’t been convicted, but anybody who was part of the Austrian Legion (be it drafted or volunteered) is very much that.

Can I remind you that he guarded slaves from a KZ while he protected BMW facilities or that he watched Jews being herded to death camps while he and his “unloaded weapon” were in Hungary?

And I’m sorry but he has actively participated in crimes against Humanity as they were defined by the Nuremberg Trials. Just because he was a little soldier and after the war there was a great amnesty does not change the fact. He participated willingly in this.

So I’m sorry but for me he is a war criminal and I have no problem calling him that.

MrMan said:
'Then again what do we expect from an organisation that is run by a war criminal who also allows mass murder in Africa by rejecting condoms and is known to shield other war criminals'.
Click to expand...
MrMan said:
You might want to re-evaluate your argument, mass murder by rejecting condoms??
Click to expand...

I’m sorry but any organisation that spreads miss-information about the usage of condoms to combat the spread of HIV/Aids is deplorable and contributes to the death of the people. Just because we in Europe can afford HIV/Aids medication that increases the chance of survival HIV/Aids infected in Africa can’t.

The church is using false information and uses their influence to stop the usage of an essential tool in combating the spread of the virus.

Sure, I could be nicer and say contribute to mass deaths rather than murder but the result is the same, they are using their undue influence threatening people with eternal condemnation just as they threatened abuse victims.
 
DublinTexas said:
So I’m sorry but for me he is a war criminal and I have no problem calling him that.
Click to expand...

One for the MODs, but referring someone as having being convicted of a crime while conceding that they've never being convicted of same is, IMHO, against the standards of AAM.
 
Calling the Pope a war criminal for what happened during WWII is a bit mad to be honest.
 
'Sure, I could be nicer and say contribute to mass deaths rather than murder but the result is the same, they are using their undue influence threatening people with eternal condemnation just as they threatened abuse victims'.

Apart from the fact that Catholicism isn't the main religion in Africa, there is quite a difference between murder and the spread of Aids in africa. Sensationalism will only undermine your argument.
Ireland is predominantly Catholic, yet the use of condoms isn't an issue here so I think you give the vatican too much credit on their actual influence.
 
Sunny said:
Calling the Pope a war criminal for what happened during WWII is a bit mad to be honest.
Click to expand...


I have to agree with these posts. I'm no fan of the Pope or their stance on AIDS but the evangelical Protestant Churches are the ones doing the damage in the Christian parts of Africa. AIDS is a major problem in the Muslim parts as well.
 
Okay, well than I have learned something today.

I cannot call a person that guarded a forced slave labour camp or stood there watching slaves send to their dead a war criminal unless he got convicted.

So I do apologize to Mr Ratzinger for my mistake.

And I cannot say that the church is a contributing factor in mass murder for their influence on people in Africa (or other parts) with their unprotected sex for recreation stance.

So in future I will have to make less sensational statements.

Lesson learned.
 
You know, the Donegal school caretaker Micheal Ferry case is equally (if not more) disturbing. A convicted abuser returns to his job and re-abuses. You really have to wonder at who runs that school & the local gardai. Will heads roll? I doubt it.The school say they will issue a statement "soon". Is it just possible that the hubris, arrogance, self-denial and self-deceit so prevelant in Cloyne and so many other places runs deeper than just the church's elites?

I just watched that brave young man in the Donegal case who waved his anonymity so that Ferry could be named, read a statement on the steps of the Courts. What was heart-wrenching was that he stood alone, his voice trembling with emotion, his face a study in pain. What was incredible was his bravery.

There are so many of these people in this country. I also heard a Cloyne's survivor demand Magee's appearance to account for himself. She pointed out that she couldn't escape or run off to Italy, she had to live and work. That says it all really, the incredible strength and courage of the abused, and the lack of these qualities in most of those who are supposed to lead the church, and the school/Gardai in Donegal it now seems.
 
Last edited:
I note lots of anti catholic invective on this thread but I also sense that contributors believe in the democratic will of the people.

Let me then remind folk that the vast majority of this country believe that Benny is JC's rep on earth and that makes Him way above any secular laws.
 

I'm not sure if your serious here Duke? Anecdotally, if you listen to church-goers interviewed about abuse, they tend to find the church's arrogance when it comes to breaking "secular" laws, and the responses of the Vatican & most Bishops reprehensible. So I don't understand who you think the "vast majority" are? In fact, I suspect that the faithful might well view the church's response as directly leading to it's demise. More than one victim has stated that the response has effectively robbed them of their faith,
 

+1 to all of that horusd, the young man was (and is) incredibly brave, a polar opposite from those in positions of responsibility. No doubt those responsible in the school in question were/will be having meetings now to try and phrase their response such that no blame can be laid at their doorstep!
 
The faithful are struggling with the CCSA thing no doubt. But as to the posters in this thread who pompously rant about foreign princes and the supremacy of secular law, they are seriously out of touch with the populace. JC himself had no respect for the secular authorities and you are well aware of what happened to Him over his illegal activities. Benny is JC's rep and he would be seriously letting down the brand if he kow-towed to any temporal princes, including our MoJ.
 

I think those being pompous about secular laws are those that are saying these laws are the law of the land and must be respected irrespective of faith.

I'm not sure if you're entirely serious though with the posts.
 
Duke the premise that the Pope is above the secular law (in at least your view) suggests a number of highly questionable and dangerous ideas.

  • You cannot assume that all or even the majority of supposed catholic's agree that this is so. Not all catholics are faithful, not all christened catholics can be assumed to believe in God, let alone the authority of the Pope.
  • The Church is not one man. And not all catholics will view his views as binding on them.
  • You ascribe to the Pope as JC's earthly representative, power that any number of fanatics would love to claim.
  • Fanatical muslims, some jews, Borneoan animists, or voodoo practicitioners probably also claim to God's chosen, maybe even the odd Austrian pastaferian too. Can all these ignore mere "secular" laws too?
  • The RC church uniquely is both a temporal power and a supposed spiritual power. It's temporal status is well-used by it to further it's ends. When it acts in this capacity, it acts as a temporal power. When it's "ambassadors" flouts commissions in Ireland and elsewhere, and actively undermines the laws of the state and indeed it's own guidelines, who should it be subject to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register