Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Pope Benedict XVI promises 'action' on abuse by priests

Discussion in 'Habari na Hoja mchanganyiko' started by Ujengelele, Apr 21, 2010.

  1. U

    Ujengelele JF-Expert Member

    #1
    Apr 21, 2010
    Joined: Jan 14, 2008
    Messages: 1,256
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    [​IMG]

    The Pope has been under pressure to refer directly to the crisis

    Pope Benedict XVI has promised that the Roman Catholic Church will take "action" over child abuse by priests. The comments are the most explicit he has made in public about a series of recent allegations against the Church.

    Speaking in Rome at his weekly general audience, he referred to his weekend meeting with abuse victims in Malta.

    "I shared with them their suffering and, with emotion, I prayed with them, promising them action on the part of the Church," he said.

    Direct reference


    The Pope met eight men, during his visit to Malta on Sunday, who have complained of abuse during their childhood at an orphanage.

    "I wanted to meet some people who were victims of abuse by members of the clergy," he said.
    One of the men, Lawrence Grech, said the meeting was "very emotional" and that "everybody cried", and that it had given him huge spiritual courage.

    The Vatican said afterwards that the Pope had had tears in his eyes.

    It said he had "prayed with them and assured them that the Church is doing, and will continue to do, all in its power to investigate allegations, to bring to justice those responsible for abuse and to implement effective measures designed to safeguard young people in the future".

    However, Wednesday was the first time in recent weeks that the Pope has made his own public comments referring directly to the issue.

    Previously he has called on Roman Catholics to "do penance" for their sins, and made other allusions to the crisis, but he has been criticised for making no direct verbal reference to the storm engulfing the Church.

    Resignations accepted


    There has been a wave of allegations that Church authorities in Europe and North and South America failed to deal properly with priests accused of paedophilia, sometimes just moving them to new parishes where more children were put at risk.

    The Pope himself has been accused of not taking strong enough steps against paedophiles when he had that responsibility as a cardinal in Rome.

    However, his supporters say he has been the most pro-active pope yet in confronting abuse.

    On Tuesday he accepted the resignation of the bishop of Miami, US, who has been accused of covering up abuse cases, and it is thought he will do the same with an Irish bishop on Thursday.

    Last week the Vatican made it clear that the policy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse of minors by clergy, adopted by Catholic bishops conferences in the US and in England and Wales, is now applicable worldwide.
     
  2. U

    Ujengelele JF-Expert Member

    #2
    Apr 22, 2010
    Joined: Jan 14, 2008
    Messages: 1,256
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    Wolves in sheeps clothing.
    2Agree 2DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    Dr. Wayne wrote:Posted 2010/04/21

    at 5:07 PM ETHopefully, Karma and/or the judicial courts will deal with those who purvey(ed) their pathetically deceitful, self-righteous religious dogma, while simultaneously preying upon the naiveté of adults, and the innocence and trust of the most vulnerable in our society ... children.
    6Agree 0DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    Dr. Wayne wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 5:00 PM ET. This Pope and so many of his ‘priestly flock’ are clearly guilty of either obstruction of justice, at the very least, and/or the repugnant abuse of minors, and should be held accountable to the laws of the land. Their secrecy and lies to avoid prosecution are pathetic attempts to maintain the century’s old ‘status quo’. Enough is enough ... get on with it ... arrests and charges should ensue. Freedom is a luxury that should not be afforded to those who have perpetrated such evil while masquerading as pious souls.


    When the ‘health and wellbeing’ of the Catholic Church and its administrators takes precedent over the physical and emotional health of its child victims of abuse, it is clear this church boarders on moral bankruptcy. Centuries have passed with no correction to its ‘modus operanti’ leading to the ruination of countless lives. The time has come for retribution.
    5Agree 2DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    Dr. Wayne wrote:Posted 2010/04/21

    at 4:59 PM ET"I shared with them their suffering ..." ... what a load of composted horse sh++ ... Mr. Pope you have no fricken idean what their suffering was ... you and your henchmen should be charged with aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice ... clear and simple.
    10Agree 5DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    CrackedTeaCup wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 4:42 PM ETGreat Picture he looks a little more alive than the last pope, he's been daed a few years.
    The Pope is a man just like any other no better no worse. The Catholic Church just like any other church is outdated and no longer serves a purpose. The church is a legalized pyramic scheme. Organized religion should be outlawed.




    The churches just keep trying to prop up their fantasies. Reminds me of a statement I read awhile ago. "Religion offers a solution to a problem of their own making". The bottom line is that as long as church leaders can keep you uninformed about true religious history the longer they can sell you on their version of it. The brainwashing is passed on from generation to generation. This fantasy chain just keeps going on & on. A world that believes in doing good in a secular humanistic way is far better than one that relies on these ancient & outdated ideas. There's are a couple of great videos on YouTube called "Top ten creationist arguments" that sums up some of the humorous arguments that churches use to push their ideas. Also there's a good article at "Boston.com" called "The unbelievers- what happens when the minister decides there's no god?" It will be interesting to see more results of this study. I wonder how many catholic priests are in this same predicament.
    2Agree 0DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    Mediaeyesied wrote:Posted 2010/04/21

    at 4:31 PM ETWhy didn't Cardinal Ratzinger take action when he was transfering these molesters from parrish to parrish?
    5Agree 2DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    Befair Please wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 3:55 PM ETThe Buddhist monks eat vegetables only and even the sex-depressing herbs, no alcohol allowed. The Christian pastors are allowed to have a family life like any normal men.
    It is the Catholic priests that have to live the impossible life: eat meat, drink wine and not having sex. How can they? Saying the prayer will help them get rid of the sexual need? No way.
    I do not blame the priests for not being able to resist a physical need, because they have a man body like any of us.

    But I blame Vatican with their obsolete, impractical, unrealistic practices, not only on priesthood celibacy but also a whole range of issues like divorce, abortion etc.. Catholicism is simply out of date.
    4Agree 4DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    BigEinMa wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 3:45 PM ETThe best thing I ever did as far as being with God was to kiss the Catholic Church goodbye.


    These guys are repugnant
    4Agree 3DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    will2change wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 3:31 PM ETOPINIONS aside:

    There is neglegence among the Vatican to conceal information and criminal activity; and victims deserve to have the criminals held accountable.

    What goes beyond that is all faith/anti-faith. But this is THE LAW.




    It's too little and it's too late - the reputation of the Catholic Church is tarnished forever.
    13Agree 3DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    Vain Zero wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 2:10 PM ETThe very first thing they need to do is stop investigating allegations. They are not the police.

    The second thing they need to do is call the police and inform them of allegations in each and every instance, and let the police do their jobs.

    The third thing they need to do is start to make amends to the victims from the Church Hierarchy, and not simply download the court imposed payments to the local chapters of the cult. This is in effect making the victims community pay the victims, and in cases where the victim for some unknown reason are still in the congregation, they are paying themselves through the collection plate.

    The fourth thing they need to do is back away from the child indoctrination process. Get out of the business of schooling. Get out of the business of overseeing orphanages, get out of the business of handling the underprivileged. And before you tell me 'the church does what no one else does for the poor'. Your wrong: people are good without god. The church has not simply filled a void in social aid. The church has taken steps to ensure they have a feeding ground and have taken over social aid over hundreds and hundreds of years. There is a difference.


    Lastly, Tax the Church. Every bit of income these corporations make for the selling of lies and paradise must be taxed for the income it is. I am tired of carrying the cult next door financially.
    12Agree 6DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    Dennis Brady wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 2:06 PM ETAlchemist wrote:
    But what I don't understand is why parents and victims always only went to the church to complain. If I found my kid had been abused I would be going straight to the authorities.
    _____________________

    Because those parents and victims have been threatened with excommunication and assurances of eternity in Hell if they break silence. The Church authorities are guilty of both aiding and abetting and of extortion.


    What I don't understand is why those authorities aren't prosecuted and jailed.
    6Agree 5DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    JimBexelySpeed wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 1:56 PM ET"I shared with them their suffering and emotionally prayed with them, assuring them of church action," Benedict said.


    Mighty big of you Mr. Pope. Seriously how can you honestly "share" their suffering? I think this little dog and pony show Benny has been putting on is so full of audacity... Wow.. Just wow.
    12Agree 3DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    twenty-twenty wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 1:48 PM ET"" "I shared with them their suffering and emotionally prayed with them, assuring them of church action," Benedict said. ""

    Why does that sound so hollow? [ After ALL this TIME! ]



    Dennis Brady wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 1:45 PM ETBadLuckShlepRoc wrote:
    Yet people continue to support the Catholic Church........beats ms..........
    ___________________

    Gotta wonder why anybody continues to support the Catholic Church.

    Do they believe the Vatican denials that it never happened?
    - That makes them stupid.

    Do they not realize it happened?
    - That makes them ignorant.

    Do they realize and believe it happened and excuse it?
    - That makes them as guilty as the pedophile priests.

    Do they believe the church is exempt from civil law?
    - That makes them evil.

    I suggest it doesn't matter why. There are no acceptable honourable reasons for supporting the Catholic Church. It matters only what good and decent people everywhere will do about this. I suggest the obvious solution is the only realistic one. Declare the Catholic Church a criminal organization (legally straightforward) repeal diplomatic status (easy to do) , seize all Church assets (including the Vatican) and extradite Benny, along with all the priests, Bishops, and Cardinals, for civil prosecution.


    If the Vatican can't solve the problem, the secular courts can legislate the Catholic Church into oblivion.
    7Agree 6DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    b.c. terry wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 1:43 PM ETkerncliff wrote:posted 2010/04/21
    at 10:29 AM ET.

    "John Paul was a good choice because he was relatively young and had some energy......this guy looks like he's nodding off most of the time"

    John Paul knew exactly what was going on as well. and didn't do a damn thing to stop it.

    "Benedict Honors John Paul 5 Years After Death"
    Pope Benedict XVI hailed the legacy of John Paul II Monday five years after his death, while questions swirl over the late pontiff's record in combatting pedophile priests and whether a miracle needed for his sainthood really happened.

    During an evening Mass in St. Peter's Basilica to pay tribute to the late pope, Benedict told pilgrims from John Paul's Polish homeland that his predecessor had "without interruption taught us to be faithful witnesses to faith, hope and love."


    Krakow Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, who for decades was John Paul's personal secretary, was among the prelates at the commemoration. Also attending was Cardinal Bernard Law, who after resigning as Boston archbishop in the sex abuse scandal which rocked his diocese, was put in charge of a prestigious Rome basilica by the late pope."
    6Agree 0DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    kjasant wrote:Posted 2010/04/21

    at 1:42 PM ETi think the church could all but eliminate such sex abuses if they would simply eliminate the whole celibacy thing. humans are sexual beings, anyone who is denied a normal healthy sexual relationship can easily fall victim to pornography or act on much worse sexual temptations such as these.
    6Agree 2DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    Spennie wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 1:34 PM ETb.c. terry wrote: "Why the hell is this guy getting a pass on indictment for covering up sexual abuse of CHILDREN!!!"
    ---------------------
    ...because the allegations (remember they were just allegations) reported several weeks ago have pretty much been discredited in the past couple of weeks - of course, don't let an update in the news change your mind: and based on all of these 'convictions' by 'enlightened' individuals who could care less about the children but more about anti-Catholic or anti-religious rants, I'm sure you are thrilled at the prospect of trial by partially-informed media, rather than educating yourselves or learning the facts.

    ah yes, conviction based on (proven wrong) allegations....Donald Marshall would be thrilled!




    Secular society seems to be the driving force in issues of morality...not the church. The church moves slow and adopts morality dicated to her by secular culture in which she operates. The church only acts as a way of preserving these morals defined by secularism. A few hundred years will pass and then church will take credit for safeguarding children from wicked men.
    10Agree 5DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    ClintonHammond wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 10:41 AM ETit is well past time that the human race put away the darkness and ignorance of religion as young adults put away childhood toys they have outgrown....


    I'd like to know why, in the USA the catholic church hasn't been indited under the RICO Act that covers organized crime.....
    9Agree 7DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    Octaneman wrote:Posted 2010/04/21

    at 10:31 AM ETAs more and more of sex abuse cases are being cast into the light of day the more people will avoid sending their kids to church. Priest are no longer revered or feared as they were in previous generations. Today priests are shunned and hated and for good reason, the fear of fire and brimstone has lost it's effectiveness in today's society. The church has in many ways lost it's ability to attract new blood as the older generation dies off, Sunday masses will become obsolete because of the decline in attendance. Given enough time many diocese will shut down, and only a few select churches will remain to provide spiritual guidance. As the decline in attendance mounts, religious instruction will begin at home instead of sending kids to church or Sunday school.
    7Agree 4DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    RandyNicholas wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 10:31 AM ETBut if the Church is as righteous and ordained by God as it claims, should they HAVE to write down on paper for their employees that raping children is wrong and illegal, and that guilty rapists should go to jail no matter the kind of collar they wear or don't wear?

    Promise action until the cows come home, the fact remains - if the organization was TRULY the Church of God, we would not be having this discussion. It is clearly a Church of men, as all churches are, fallible, and prone to make mistakes. And if they would actually accept responsibility for those mistakes, then I could at least chalk it off to human error.

    How quickly would we shut down a school, daycare, or summer camp given repeated abuse and cover up? I dare say the first scrap of evidence would be all that is needed for the public to demand closure. But somehow, the Church is exempt, after decades if not centuries of abuse and cover up, and piles and piles of damning evidence, and still all we have heard is vague promises and proselytizing from the Emperor of the Catholics.


    ENOUGH SPEECHES. I want to see handcuffs or else not another single word.
    17Agree 4DisagreePolicy Report abuse


    Redbike wrote:Posted 2010/04/21
    at 10:31 AM ET"Last week, the Vatican for the first time issued guidelines telling bishops they should report cases of abusive priests to police where civil laws require it".


    This pretty much says it all, folks. These sexual deviants should only be reported to police "where civil law requires it". This is morally bankrupt and hypocrisy of the highest order. Shame on this church and its leader!











     
  3. U

    Ujengelele JF-Expert Member

    #3
    Apr 22, 2010
    Joined: Jan 14, 2008
    Messages: 1,256
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    Catholic church says sorry over child sex abuse scandals


    Archbishop of Westminster's statement on behalf of Catholic church in England and Wales follows pope's call for change
    [​IMG] Archbishop Vincent Nichols, president of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales. Photograph: Sarah Lee


    Catholic bishops in England and Wales today asked for forgiveness and offered a "heartfelt" apology for the child abuse scandal that has engulfed the church.
    A joint statement presented by the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, was issued at the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, and will go out to all parishes at the end of a plenary meeting in Leeds.
    The statement described the crimes carried out by some priests and religious figures as a "profound scandal" and said: "They bring deep shame to the whole church. But shame is not enough. The abuse of children is a grievous sin against God. Therefore we focus not on shame but on our sorrow for these sins ... We ask their pardon, and the pardon of God for these terrible deeds done in our midst. There can be no excuses."
    The statement said the church would work with safeguarding commissions within its dioceses to ensure relevant steps were taken to protect against any further abuse and atone for those who were already victims.

    The statement of contrition follows remarks yesterday by Pope Benedict XVI in which he made his first call for change since a series of accusations of abuse engulfed the Catholic church.
    In his weekly public audience in St Peter's Square, the pope spoke of an earlier statement issued by the Vatican pledging that the church would take action to confront the clerical sex abuse scandal. The statement said the church would do everything in its power to bring justice against abusive priests and would implement "effective measures" to protect children.
    The pope is set to formally accept the resignation of Bishop James Moriarty, who admitted in December that he had not challenged the Dublin archdiocese's past practice of concealing child abuse complaints from the police.
    Moriarty will be the latest Irish bishop to have his resignation ratified by the papacy following the fallout from the Murphy report on child abuse in Ireland. He has already made it known that he expected that the Vatican would agree to his offer to resign.
    He described his resignation as "the most difficult decision of my ministry" and admitted that he had not originally intended to resign after the publication of the Murphy report in November.
    "However, renewal must begin with accepting the responsibility for the past. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that we needed a new beginning, and that I could play my part in opening the way," he added.
    Despite today's expected announcement, the fate of Dublin auxiliary bishops Eamonn Walsh and Ray Field, who offered their resignations last Christmas Eve, also in the wake of the Murphy report, remains unclear. Last month the pope accepted the resignation of another member of the Irish hierarchy, the Bishop of Cloyne, John Magee.
    The church has been inundated by criticism since the Murphy report on decades of child abuse in Ireland, which revealed that paedophile priests were shielded by peers and officials. The wider Catholic church has been hit by sex abuse scandals this year, with victims coming forward in Ireland, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Netherlands, Germany and the US.
    Thousands of people have signed a petition on Downing Street's website against the pope's four-day visit to England and Scotland in September.
    The petition, launched by gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, says the visit, to cost an estimated £15m, should not be funded by the British taxpayer.
    During his weekly public audience, the pope recounted his tearful weekend encounter in Malta with eight men who say they were abused as children by priests in a church-run orphanage. The pope met the men in the Vatican's embassy, praying with them and listening to their stories.
    "I shared with them their suffering, and emotionally prayed with them, assuring them of church action," he told the audience.
    At the time of the private meeting on Sunday, the Vatican issued a statement saying the pope had told the men that the church would do everything in its power to bring justice to abusive priests and would implement "effective measures" to protect children. Neither the pope nor the Vatican has elaborated on what action or measures are being considered. Various national bishops' conferences have over the years implemented norms for handling cases of priests who sexually abuse children.
     
  4. PlanckScale

    PlanckScale JF-Expert Member

    #4
    Apr 25, 2010
    Joined: Sep 28, 2008
    Messages: 507
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 35
    Catholics in the forum should speak out in defense of the "father"...Where are you guys?
     
  5. The Son of Man

    The Son of Man JF-Expert Member

    #5
    Apr 25, 2010
    Joined: Feb 9, 2010
    Messages: 10,956
    Likes Received: 359
    Trophy Points: 180
    You can't force anyone to comment. Above all not every topic needs to be commented on and not every question deserves an answer!
     
  6. PlanckScale

    PlanckScale JF-Expert Member

    #6
    Apr 25, 2010
    Joined: Sep 28, 2008
    Messages: 507
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 35
    Does the word "should" implies "forcing" to you ??
    And how do you make it known that this particular topic needed no response? If you in particular don't want to comment, then let it pass...
     
  7. The Son of Man

    The Son of Man JF-Expert Member

    #7
    Apr 25, 2010
    Joined: Feb 9, 2010
    Messages: 10,956
    Likes Received: 359
    Trophy Points: 180
    well said, then tell us what does should mean. Get into the dictionary and weigh your statement.
    Here we go:
    Should 1

    Definition: of Shall

    Should 2

    Definition: Used as an auxiliary verb, to express a conditional or contingent act or state, or as a supposition of an actual fact; also, to express moral obligation (see Shall); e. g.: they should have come last week; if I should go; I should think you could go.

    Not enough?

    should (sh[​IMG]d)aux.v. Past tense of shall 1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.

    Hope you are there, Not Yet?
    should [ʃʊd]vb (Linguistics / Grammar) the past tense of shall: used as an auxiliary verb to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be obligatory (you should go) or to form the subjunctive mood with I or we (I should like to see you; if I should be late, go without me)[Old English sceold; see shall]
    Usage: Should has, as its most common meaning in modern English, the sense ought as in I should go to the graduation, but I don't see how I can. However, the older sense of the subjunctive of shall is often used with I or we to indicate a more polite form than would: I should like to go, but I can't. In much speech and writing, should has been replaced by would in contexts of this kind, but it remains in formal English when a conditional subjunctive is used: should he choose to remain, he would be granted asylum
     
  8. PlanckScale

    PlanckScale JF-Expert Member

    #8
    Apr 26, 2010
    Joined: Sep 28, 2008
    Messages: 507
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 35
    Yes, but that is partially correct. The meaning of “should” is not limited on the definition you have chosen to advocate. For your information, in addition to express Obligation, “should” also is used to express recommendation, advisability, and expectation. In fact, this word is mostly used as away to make a recommendations without appearing to be forceful, which is contrary to what you have emphasis herein.

    Here is a much a rather comprehensive definition of “should”:
    REF: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/should

    should
    (sh[​IMG]d)
    aux.v. Past tense of shall
    1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
    2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
    3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
    4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.


    Here is another way of defining “should”:
    Ref: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should

    4 —used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected <with an early start, they should be here by noon>
    5 —used in auxiliary function to express a request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement <I should suggest that a guide…is the first essential — L. D. Reddick>


    I think the following definition closely matches my intended meaning:
    http://www.englishpage.com/modals/should.html


    Therefore, it would have been best if you had looked into the definition of a word within the context of my intended message. I believe that this is a discussion forum where issues are discussed/debated, and not a place to post stories from other news sources for people to just read. I guess now I have provoked you into a debate, although our debate is totally irrelevant to the thread's subject. Well, what the hell...

    Lete mambo[​IMG]
     
Loading...