ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

One would have thought that it it would be common sense for the person appointed to such a post, to have an in depth knowledge of those he was going to be working with.

But then again, Northern Ireland.... Peter Mandelson, Royal Bank of Scotland.... Fred Goodwin (feel free to add your own suggestions.)

I presume the programme makes clear the appointment was by open competition and not the personal whim of Tony Blair

Ireland is revealed as virtually a theocracy, a colony of the Vatican. Revelations both in the United States and Ireland shows the Vatican ranks with the worst terrorist organizations in the world, its agents having perpetrated countless crimes of all imaginable kinds against children and systematically covering them up. Under any reasonable system of criminal law, the perpetrators would be in jail for a very long time, under any reasonable system of civil law the Vatican which is the mastermind behind the coverup would be fined billions in reparations to the victims, and the Pope would be among those sought by the ICC for prosecution, equal to the worst mafioso in Sicily, the criminals in Sudan behind Darfur, Mullah Omar's brutal dictatorship in Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein. The heinousness of the crimes cannot be overstated, their numbers are shocking. Maintaining diplomatic relations with the Vatican under these circumstances is a crime in itself.

Ireland's population has demonstrated it is virtually helpless and powerless when confronted with these undeniable facts. There is far more talk about what the Church will do about the crimes than about what the criminal justice system in Ireland will do about them. Pathetic.

A petition has started in Scotland to insist that the Church foot the bill for the Pope's visit in September and not the tax payer, even although it was Gordon Brown who extended the invitation.

Those who have signed the petition have been rubbished in the Press as bigots. Personally, I think the petitioners have a point. There are many reasons why he should stay away, the least of which is who should foot the bill.

There is also an online petition where thousands of Catholics (including hundreds of priests) have asked the Pope to stall the imposition of an old translation of Mass on the people. It is a literal translation from the Latin which very few wish to return to.



When the Bishops originally voted for Mass to be in good English at Vat II, the vote was overwhelming, 2147 for - 4 against. Ratzinger is ignoring this and WILL impose this against the clear deeply held views of the majority.

The people who have signed the petition are not 'reds under the beds', so called liberals or modernists. They are ordinary decent Catholics who see this move as the last straw. The comments left on the petition are not screaming and shouting, they are very charitable but at the same time begging Ratzinger not to do this and to think again about the damage he will do if he pushes this through.

A cursory glance at the comments will also show that people are asking their Bishops to start showing a bit of backbone for once and stand up to this bullying. They will be disappointed to know that their voice wasnt even heard at the recent ad limina visits by the English, Welsh and Scottish Bishops, where none of them had the guts to even bring the subject up. (Alex Ferguson is apparently not the only one who owns a hair dryer!)

The changes WILL be imposed. No doubt the 200 Anglican dyke jumpers will be delighted.

And if the world wants to know just how cowardly our Bishops are they need only look at the Irish Bishops bowing and grovelling in the Vatican, as I write, and sitting back listening to a lecture on humility from a man who ordered them to remain silent about abuse in the first place. It is sickening.

Marcus - I agree entirely with your penultimate sentence.

Everything else, though, is somewhat overstated. Perhaps you would identify the specific laws which were broken and by whom rather than ranting. And remember, for every bishop who "failed to report" there was a parent and a psychiatrist and a social worker who also "failed to report". Do you propose charging them all?

>>>>"The heinousness of the crimes cannot be overstated"

I think you'll find, if you read your own post, that clearly they can.

I didn't have the dubious pleasure of reading Jellybrain before my last post since someone had complained to the moderators about him (please stop doing that - it's annoying and childish).

The Holy Father will be on a State visit to Great Britain which, in common with all State visits, means the host country pays for various things, including internal travel and accommodation. That is the norm throughout the world.

In which fantasy parallel universe did the bishops vote "for the Mass to be in good English"? It never happened. Of course what the bishops did actually vote for was the retention of Latin in the liturgy, which of course has almost completely been ignored.

The English translation of 1969 and 1975 systemmatically dumbed down the liturgical language, including, bizarrely removing clearly scriptural references, or translating them in a way that would make the connection impossible to get. Why would anyone want to support that?

As for the suggestion that there are huge numbers of ordinary faithful up in arms over the new translation - well, that's nonsense on stilts. The ordinary faithful have no idea this is happening and most couldn't care less one way or another. Of course it is agitators who are opposing the new translations. They are petrified of change.

I agree that the sight of the bishops at the Vatican was rather revolting. Hardly one of them knows how to wear his pectoral cross and few of them seemed to know that one should genuflect while kissing the Holy Father's ring, and not hovver several inches above his hand a la Willy Walsh.

Marcus

Will you please stop mentioning silly issues like the sexual and physical abuse of thousands of innocent children and the subsequent cowardly cover up by the hierarchy and concentrate on important issues like how one should properly salivate the Pope's ring.

MCC

Time of my post - 10.45am
Time of your response to it - 11.20am

35 minutes in which you wrote a response to Marcus and a response to me. Didnt really leave you much time to read the link I provided where thousands of ordinary Catholics actually DO express their feelings against the impending imposition on us.

Given the admission you make about the gossip shop you indulge in with your 'pals' after Mass, its not really a surprise that you dont know any people who object to the changes. You're obviously an expert on kissing the Pope's ring but you really should try broadening the circle of your friends.

Here's the link again, have a wee read this time.

And please try and read my posts carefully before waffling on about who pays for State visits etc.. we already know this. My objections to the visit have very little to do with who pays for it. Isnt that pretty clear in my post?

Jellybrain - you said the petitioners (over paying for State visit) have a point. I was merely saying they and you don't.

I had already had a look at the list of Tablet/America readers - otherwise known as the petition.

Firstly petitions shouldn't accept anonymous signatures - that makes no sense. Secondly, by definition ordinary people don't sign things like this - they aren't aware of them and don't care - if you care about the issue, on either side of the argument, you aren't the ordinary faithful. And when you look at the list, lots of "lay ministers" and professional petition signers - Sr Gladys Schmitz is a good example. She must do nothing but sign petitions - The Unitarian LGBT petition, the Stop the Surge in Afghanistan petition, the Better Disaster Relief for Haiti Petition, the No More Taxpayer Bailout petition, the No to Nuclear petition. I mean seriously, does this "sister" do any work?

If you truly believe in Vatican II then you must accept that it said "β€œThe use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites....Care must be taken to ensure that the faithful may also be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

That's what the Council actually said.

Where were all these people when the Mass of Paul VI was dropped on people overnight, altars ripped out, sanctuaries destroyed - where was the "let's wait for the spirit" brigade then. They was swinging hammers and singing Kumbaya.

Your time is gone, your day is run, the Catholic Church is waking up, get with the programme or get out.

McCamel;

"Perhaps you would identify the specific laws which were broken and by whom rather than ranting."

In criminal law the abuse of children in most civilized coutries is a crime, a serious felony. The sexual abuse of children is a particularly heinous crime. In the United States it is considered so heinous that it is the only instance I can think of where the convicted criminal is publically labeled a "sex offender" even after his release from prison, must report his address wherever he lives to local police, is revealed to people in the neighborhood where he lives so that neighbors who have children can be wary of him in case he might commit more crimes against children, and is in general ostracized by society. Covering it up the way the church did is aiding and abetting and also falls under the statutes of conspiracy which have no statute of limitations insofar as time is concerned. Also in the US failure to disclose the commission of a felony and withholding of evidence of a felony are also felonies.

Under the ICC among the violations would be crimes against humanity and violation of human rights. Specialists in internatioal law could probably cite others. (BTW, there are UN workers in UN peacekeeping forces in some countries who are also guilty of these same crimes and are also not prosecuted.)

"And remember, for every bishop who "failed to report" there was a parent and a psychiatrist and a social worker who also "failed to report". Do you propose charging them all?"

That is a very good idea. In the US those are also felonies. Do you know that in the US spanking your own child can result in his being removed from your home by authorities. Your child is not your property, you cannot do whatever you want to your children.

">>>>"The heinousness of the crimes cannot be overstated"

I think you'll find, if you read your own post, that clearly they can."

In American prisons, the culture among criminals themselves has a heirarchy. At the lowest rung of this heirarchy are child sex offenders. They are so detested by other prisoners that they are often beaten and even killed in prison by other inmates. And the guards are usually indifferent to it, not that there is necessarily anything they can do to prevent it. In our society of all possible crimes, crimes of violence against the most helpless and defenseless are considerd to be the most hateful of all crimes. The lives of all of the victims of these self appointed pillars of morality have been ruined, their chances for a happy and fulfilling life they are entitled to denied them. They will carry the scars of the wounds inflicted on them throughout their entire lives. The psychological pain will never be erased. How do you overstate that?

You overstate it by directing your anger at the wrong people. You overstate it by letting the actual molesters off the hook but instead attacking the Pope and comparing him to Saddam Hussein, a man who gassed his own people, who personally tortured people, who is known to gouge out the eyes of people as punishment. That's how you overstate it - or perhaps that understating it.

In Ireland where the Garda and DPP can make a provable case against a child rapist or abuser they should do so. Everyone supports that. There is nothing stopping that but the passage of time and the difficulty in collecting evidence in such cases.

I don't think you'll find many people to support you in going after the parents of victims who failed to report the matter to the police.

But in any event, it was not a crime and you can't make it a crime retrospectively.

As for your hierarchy of crime - where do abortionists fit in?

I wish I'd received a pound for every instance mccamleyc brought up abortion on this blog completely out of nowhere. I might have earned as much as when I had received a pound for every time Orthodox Tradition brings up gays out of nowhere. I've lost track which of them is worse at voicing his pet subject at inappropriate moments.

There are 46 million reasons in America alone why I bring up abortion. It remains the most significant type of child abuse in the world today, made worse by its being endorsed and supported by people who like to present themselves are concerned humanists.

In this instance I brought it up because Marcus was ranting about a hierarchy of crime.

And as I have asked many times on this blog - how can people talk about covering up child abuse when they support providing contraception to children without reporting the crime that is obviously taking place?

Pretend Carmelite

If everyone who supported Vatican II is to "get out", there will only be you, Ratz and and few lace albs left. (Who will fund your marble statues of Pius Xth then?) The one thing that all you lot have in common with your "get out" comments is that none of you actually really care one jot for the people of God. You have more in common with Nazism, than Christianity as your posts consistantly show.

If you care to read the petitions a bit more carefully (at least you've read some before you posted this time!!) you'll find that Irish people have said please, not now in Ireland. Enough people have walked away because of the abuse scandals, this is a bad time to impose this change.
And the reason they resort to signing a petition is that they have absolutely no platform to voice their legitimate concerns as the recent ad limina visits proved.

And please stop trying to deflect attention as usual from the clergy and hierarchy to the police and social workers. You have admitted that you didnt want the Ferns or the Murphy reports, you didnt want an investigation, so we all know exactly where you stand regarding the abused.

Godwin's Law

From Wikipedia "there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison [with Nazis] is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

McCamel

"You overstate it by directing your anger at the wrong people. You overstate it by letting the actual molesters off the hook but instead attacking the Pope and comparing him to Saddam Hussein, a man who gassed his own people, who personally tortured people, who is known to gouge out the eyes of people as punishment. That's how you overstate it - or perhaps that understating it."

It is estimated that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered 50,000 people a year for 20 years, a total of around 1 million people. He did not murder most of those people personally. Hitler may never have killed a single Jew himself in his life. But as the individual who is at the pinacle of a ruling hierarchy that systematically committed and covered up crimes the Pope is as guilty as his underlings. The test in United States law is "knew or should have known."

"In Ireland where the Garda and DPP can make a provable case against a child rapist or abuser they should do so. Everyone supports that. There is nothing stopping that but the passage of time and the difficulty in collecting evidence in such cases."

Passage of time and conspiracy to cover up are the ke. Even where there is a statute of limitations in the US, a conspiracy to cover up crimes negates that because it deliberately tries to circumvent the discovery of crime until the time limit has run out. That's what the bishops did. The statute of limitations should not apply. Why aren't Irish prosecutors looking for ways to punish the criminals or is this intentional flaw in Irish law intended to preclued that?

"I don't think you'll find many people to support you in going after the parents of victims who failed to report the matter to the police."

Under American law it wouldn't matter what the public felt about it, the District Attorney represents the rights of the victim, not public opinion polls. And the DA must prosecute under the law or have a damned good reason not to and explain it to the public. DA's have to run for office here, they don't own their jobs for life.

"But in any event, it was not a crime and you can't make it a crime retrospectively."

Which, the coverup? The refusal to bring the evidence that a felony had been committed to he attention of authorities? This only serves to prove that in theocratic Ireland, the church has had inordinate influence in creating laws that protect them from prosecution and that the subservient population has not rebelled against it. That is part of what makes it so pathetic.

"As for your hierarchy of crime - where do abortionists fit in?"

In the United States, abortion has been legal for almost forty years since Rowe v Wade when the Supreme Court overturned laws making most abortions illegal. Abortion during the first trimester is always legal. Abortion to save the life of the mother is always legal. I'm not certain about where things stand in the legality of discretionary late term abortions as the laws likely vary from state to state. Those who commit criminal acts against people who work in performing legal abortions such as doctors and nurses or against clinics where they are performed are criminals themselves and are usually treated as terrorists. They can be punished up to the limit of the law which in the case of murder can include their execution. With the Obama administration likely having the opportunity to appoint several supreme court judges during his administration, abortion is likely to remain legal in the Uinted States indefinitely.

Not only has the Catholic Church been revealed as a criminal organization, their constant harangue about all matters related to human sexuality now reveals it to be undeniably an entirely hypocritical organization as well.

How can a society accept that the very organization which was responsible for committing the crimes and covering them up can at best offer only a promise to see to it that it doesn't happen again? What kind of justice system is that? Not one I would want to live under. What other crime can you think of would such a promise from a felon and a largely unrepentent one at that be accepted as sufficient?

If only we all lived under the American justice system, how much better the world would be.

Wrong again, pretend Carmelite.

The original quote actually states when "Hitler" is mentioned, not the Nazis. I used the actual quote on here last year in response to JW, if I remember correctly. You obviously didnt notice. Nice to see Wikipedia catching up though and getting it nearly right.

There are also plenty of quotes about people who must get the last word, who must win arguments on blog sites and people who are so filled with their own self importance that they will not listen to reasoned argument and who often respond with insults like "silly girl", for example.

Marcus

Ratzinger is not guilty because he happens to be the head of the Catholic Church. He is guilty because for 25 years as head of the CDF he knew what was going on and did hee haw about it, eventually directing his 'underlings' to keep quiet about it. He is far, far more guilty than a mere Head of State under whom 'bad things' happened to take place.

Well according to Mike Godwin it's Nazis or Hitler and he refers to as Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies - see more at

As the Nazis knew of course, if you repeat a lie often enough and make it big enough people do belief it and this is the case with Cardinal Ratzinger's involvement in child abuse. His instruction had precisely nothing to do with cover ups and every thing to do with speeding up the process of laicisation for those guilty of crimes. But you know all this already before you continue to spread your evil lies about the Holy Father. The Nazis would be proud of the legacy they have gifted to you.

Referred to the moderators? Clearly the truth hurts.

ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ reported tonight that the wife of a terrorist in Britain who was planning to blow up airplane in his jihad is also being prosecuted because she knew of his activities but did't report them to the police. So insofar as the test of knew or should have known, at least in the UK as a minimum knew is sufficient for having committed a crime. Of course Ireland is not in the UK but its criminal laws may be similar.

rjb;

"Ratzinger is not guilty because he happens to be the head of the Catholic Church. He is guilty because for 25 years as head of the CDF he knew what was going on and did hee haw about it"

That is like saying Al Capone wasn't guilty because he didn't pull the trigger. The burden of proof in a conspiracy case for a prosecutor is a very difficult one to meet. Capone died in prison of syphillis but he was never convicted of any of the countless crimes of violence he was responsible for as a crime boss. Instead the feds got him on income tax evasion.

I think you miss my point, Marcus.

Ratzinger's guilt does not lie in the fact that he simply heads an organisation in which criminal activity took place.

His guilt lies in that he actively conspired in cover up, silencing victims and their families with threats of excommunication and burying complaints where he intended that they would never see the light of day.

rjb, I got the point. I simply disagree. I think he's guilty on both accounts. In fact, having become the Pope and still not doing anything about it only increases his culpability.

Well that thought did strike me too. Taking a seat at the top of the table and speaking to the Bishops as if he is somehow above reproach.

I also agree with what you say elsewhere regarding what the Irish (or any other nation) are going to do about it. Your own country had a good solution a few years ago - No taxation without representation!

Just finished watching the programme. Congrats to ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Northern Ireland - an interesting programme and filmed with a light touch. Tony Blair's creepy though - looked like he was making that story up.

Chris - agree totally with your comment. It was an interesting programme and I look forward to the rest of the series. I'm afraid TB just looks creepier and creepier every time I see him - I thought looking at the eyes he'd be perfect already for the next Joker.