Posted on 03/27/2010 8:37:56 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The possibility has been raised that Pope Benedict XVI should resign over the snowballing paedophile priest scandal in the Catholic Church. The BBC's Vatican correspondent, David Willey, examines the question.
In theory, there is nothing to stop Pope Benedict taking a piece of paper out of his writing desk and drafting a letter of resignation to hand to the College of Cardinals, the supreme electoral body of the Catholic Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
That is a good analysis. The media no longer is motivated to report the news. Their motivation has changed to propagandizing the liberal, socialist agenda. So, the first thing I do when I read media is to ask, what is this reporter trying to sell..I usually can figure out their intent.
It’s happening. Bible prophecy is coming together rapidly. We are not to be looking for antichrist, but for Jesus Christ. Those who deny God and all of His Glory will follow the son of perdition. 1/3 of the world will be saved during this process. almost 2 billion people will accept Jesus Christ as a result of the antichrist’s actions. The greatest altar call ever. What the enemy meant for evil God means for good
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2480925/posts
Today's front-page story in the New York Times suggests that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), under the direction of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, failed to act against a Wisconsin priest who was accused of molesting scores of boys at a school for the deaf.
Is the story damaging? Yes. Should the Vatican have acted faster? Yes. Should the accused priest have been laicized? In all probability, Yes again.
Nevertheless, before assigning all blame to the Vatican, consider these factors:
1. The allegations of abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy began in 1955 and continued in 1974, according to the Times account. The Vatican was first notified in 1996: 40 years after Church officials in Wisconsin were first made aware of the problem. Local Church leaders could have taken action in the 1950s. They didn't.
2. The Vatican, following the standard procedures required by canon law, kept its own inquiries confidential. But the CDF never barred other investigations. Local Church officials could have given police all the information they had about the allegations against Murphy. Indeed they could have informed police 40 years earlier. They didn't.
3. Milwaukee's Archbishop Cousins could have suspended Father Murphy from priestly ministry in 1974, when he was evidently convinced that the priest was guilty of gross misconduct. He didn't. Instead he transferred the predator priest to a new diocese, allowing him to continue pastoral work giving him access to other innocent young people. And as if that weren't enough, later Archbishop Weakland made sure that there was no "paper trail." There was certainly a cover-up in this case. It was in Milwaukee, not in Rome.
4. Having called the Vatican's attention to Murphy's case, Archbishop Weakland apparently wanted an immediate response, and was unhappy that the CDF took 8 months to respond. But again, the Milwaukee archdiocese had waited decades to take this action. Because the Milwaukee archdiocese had waited so long to take action, the canonical statute of limitations had become an important factor in the Vatican's decision to advise against an ecclesiastical trial.
5. In a plea for mercy addressed to Cardinal Ratzinger, Father Murphy said that he had repented his misdeeds, was guilty of no recent misconduct, and was in failing health. Earlier this month Msgr. Charles Scicluna, the chief Vatican prosecutor in sex-abuse cases, explained that in many cases involving elderly or ailing priests, the CDF chooses to forego a full canonical trial, instead ordering the priest to remove himself from public ministry and devote his remaining days to penance and prayer. This was, in effect, the final result of the Vatican's inquiry in this case; Father Murphy died just months later.
6. The correspondence makes it clear that Archbishop Weakland took action not because he wanted to protect the public from an abusive priest, but because he wanted to avoid the huge public outcry that he predicted would emerge if Murphy was not disciplined. In 1996, when the archbishop made that prediction, the public outcry would--and should--have been focused on the Milwaukee archdiocese, if it had materialized. Now, 14 years later, a much more intense public outcry is focused on the Vatican. The anger is justifiable, but it is misdirected.
This is a story about the abject failure of the Milwaukee archdiocese to discipline a dangerous priest, and the tardy effort by Archbishop Weakland--who would soon become the subject of a major scandal himself--to shift responsibility to Rome.
Believe me, the WH knows the Pope’s name. This is the only serious, powerful opposition Bambi has. In his first year, Obama did everything possible to essentially imply that he was the head of the Church, in fact; things like the showdowns over the Notre Dame degree, the address at Georgetown, etc. were all positioned to show that the bishops were powerless and that Obama was essentially the one who called the shots in the Catholic Church. Obviously, he did this with the assistance of both clerical and lay followers, who really do regard him as more important than the Pope.
However, because the Church is an actual, physical institution with a chain of command (although not a very functional one, alas!), Obama knows that no matter what he does, he will not be accepted as their leader by all Catholics, simply because he is not the Pope and never can be. BTW, it doesn’t seem to matter to him that he’s not a Catholic and in fact is either a Muslim or an athiest; he sees himself as the rightful head of the Church simply because it is the biggest organization around.
He could, in theory, pull a Henry VIII and get American Catholics to make some sort of statement or oath of fidelity to him and then begin persecution of those who did not. But that wouldn’t be sufficient in this day and age, and I doubt that even Henry could have pulled it off under modern conditions
What can he do? Personally, I think that when he feels that he has done as much damage as possible to this country and destroyed us, he will somehow make himself head of the UN. In the meantime, the way he will try to take over and destroy the Church is by first destroying this Pope and then forcing the choice of his selected candidate.
I meant it as a crude analogy. Like when a "journalist" says to a conservative politician "there's talk of you resigning" or "it's been said by some that . . ." No. The "journalist" is saying it or his or her editors/producers or whatever they're called in TVNewsLand are saying it.
The BBC has raised the question. It's this silly "passive language" that makes me crazy. The BBC should print "We at the BBC wish to state in the strongest possible terms our desire to see Pope Benedict XVI resign as leader of the world's 1 billion Catholics due to the snowballing paedophile scandal . . . ."
They are gutless.
Who said the pope was Christian? Not by biblical standards anyhow. He’s a catholic. Jesus Christ was deposed as the leader of the church, and is why the Christian church doesn’t need a human representative: Jesus never gave up his throne, and he didn’t offer it to anyone. This is what he did give to the church:
Eph 4:11-13 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ
Pope is nowhere in the equation, and the concept of pope is absent from the gospels, and the pastoral/general epistles.
No wonder pedophiles in the catholic clergy is so rampant. Jesus said “By their fruits, you shall know them”.
He’s not called the Panzer Pope for nothing. He will flick these fleas off his collar as if they are the nothings they are. This Pope is anything but a pushover. Nice try Libs. May you rot in the burning fires for your attempt to take down this wonderful Pope, which you won’t ever succeed in doing.
“Why would the BBC fabricate such a story from whole cloth? “
Probably because of a clear history of anti-Christian bias in their reporting, and most of that bias becomes quite irrational when it comes to Catholics and the Catholic faith.
Not saying BBC started the rumor/discussion, but it fits with something they certainly would encourage and champion.
Oh, they know his name alright.
“Who said the pope was Christian? Not by biblical standards anyhow. He’s a catholic. “
PING to NYer.
I posted this on another thread devoted to this same subject:
Prudential errors were made, but Benedict has done more to address the problems in the priesthood in his short pontificate than were ever addressed in the years previous. This is a campaign to demoralize Catholics(and in effect other Christians) during the holiest time of the Church year, and to inflict damage on the Church as payback for opposition to pro-abort Obamacare. That’s not to say that a good scouring of the Church doesn’t need to be done. There is always sorrow and death before resurrection.
Pray for the Pope, and for all people of good will. I think that, with the magnitude of the crisis in the world and church at the present time, that perhaps God’s justice and mercy are soon to fall on the world.
Hopefully you’re right. More and more though I get this feeling we are living in the final days and thats not what I have ever thought before. Things seem to be coming together and most people don’t even realize it.
“Jesus never gave up his throne, and he didn’t offer it to anyone. This is what he did give to the church:”
He couldn’t, he is Jesus, but He DID say to Peter: Upon this rock YOU will build My Church.
I know all the heresies. You don’t need to sling verses. I’m not persuaded.
Besides, this is way off topic.
Agreed. The actual topic itself is so fascinating that ought to be enough for this thread.
Matthew 16: 13, Jesus asks His disciples “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” ...... “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (verses 15-18)
On the knowledge of what Peter said - WHO Christ is - He is The Cornstrone, The Rock on which His Church is built.
At first glance, it may appear that Jesus was referring to Peter as “the rock”, but we have to keep in mind that the New Testament was written in Greek, not English.
This is one instance where the original wording reveals the true meaning of what is being said. The Greek word for Peter is petros, which means “a pebble” or a small stone. On the other hand, the Greek word that Jesus used for rock is petra, meaning “a massive rock” or bedrock. Now we can see that there is an obvious difference!
Peter was correct when he stated that Jesus was “the Christ” and it was this profession of truth that the church would be founded upon: Jesus Christ “the chief cornerstone” (Matthew 21:42)Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “’The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?.
Jesus was talking about building His church upon the solid bedrock, not a small pebble.
Psalm 118:22 The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief corner stone.
Acts 4:11 “He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone.
Romans 9:33 just as it is written, “BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
1 Peter 2:7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,”
JESUS is the CORNERSTONE, The ROCK of The Church.
You are a BIGOT.....Congratulate yourself, you have been taught well.
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.