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 ...
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.
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.
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?
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).
Methinks you mischaracterize (or else simply misread, outright) my simple, straightforward response to a troll whose FR account has, quite rightly, been suspended. ;)
It’s spelled “sieg.”
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.
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.
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.
It appears that the mods do too.
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.
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.
My mistake.
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.
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.
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.
Not in American. LOL
No problem. :)
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?
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.