Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well, not everyone goes along with the scenario ecdc outlines in #18. It may be true, but... Another school of thought holds that Ratzinger was well aware of what was going on, long before he has admitted. And that he may even have been personally involved with re-assigning known pedophiles and/or covering up their actions. And then was "shocked, shocked!" (a la Claude Rains) to learn that such things were going on. Further, this theory holds, there is "smoking gun" evidence of this that may come to light soon. I don't know if this is true either. But this explains (according to this train of thought) why he'd resign; if it came to light while he was still Pope, it would be huge, and there would be inevitable calls for him to be removed, or resign under pressure, which couldn't be allowed to happen. If he resigns now, the news would still be big, but the Church can more easily say that this sort of thing is "in our past" (pretty difficult if the present Pope is implicated) and they're dealing with it. This theory further holds that they will choose a young (for a Pope) man who is as far removed from the scandal as possible, and who only held low-level positions/responsibilities when the worst of it was going on (i.e. someone who wouldn't have been able to do much about it even if he knew of it).
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I think the ex-Pope goes from being the Holy Father to the Holy Absent Father Who Left My Mom And Only Can Only See Me One Weekend A Month
Originally Posted By TomSawyer And if the theory that he is leaving due to the pedophilia scandal, then it would be yet one more member of the Clergy who was moved on to another role when his complicity in the molestation and raping of boys became a burden to the church.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Another school of thought holds that Ratzinger was well aware of what was going on, long before he has admitted.<< See, your explanation is interesting, and entirely plausible. I'm curious to see how it all plays out. After watching "Mea Maxima Culpa," on the abuse of deaf children in Wisconsin and the larger abuse scandal, I've wondered a few things. First, how much of this is because the men who run this church are ancient? I mean, a lot of their policies to deal with abuse were developed in the '40s and '50s, when you just kept these things quiet. The Catholic Church even set up monasteries specifically to send abusers to get "recovery." I don't think a lot of people appreciate that the notion of call the cops, arrest the person, and send them away forever, is a fairly modern one. To be sure, it happened, but more often than not, families kept abuse quiet and didn't want it publicized. Second, what on earth would have to happen before Catholics stop giving this organization their money? Seriously, this is apparently the Church of Christ and the bar isn't even higher than "our ministers rape children?" Draw the line somewhere people, have some moral courage.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Well SPP, I guess I'm kidding myself. I think the reason he is leaving it pretty much what he stated." Wel,, yeah, he's 85 and getting decrepit, so it's hard to argue with his reasoning, but just the same, when he's the first one to resign in over 600 years, there's something else going on. And very publicly right now, there's this child abuse scandal. Word here in L.A. is that Cardinal Roger Mahoney could very well be looking at getting indicted and possibly spending the rest of his life in prison. Five years ago or less he was considered untouchable, no pun intended.
Originally Posted By mawnck I don't know about cigars, but it sounds like we're giving him poop for making a very sensible decision, in the face of a gazillion years of rather senseless tradition. I approve of this.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I sense an anti-Catholic bias by many on this board, exemplified by comments like: <<Second, what on earth would have to happen before Catholics stop giving this organization their money? Seriously, this is apparently the Church of Christ and the bar isn't even higher than "our ministers rape children?" Draw the line somewhere people, have some moral courage.>> While nowhere near as strong as the anti-Mormon bias found here, it is there just the same. I find that a little hard to understand considering that in many areas (especially peace and social justice) the Catholic church is considerably more liberal than the protestant/fundamentalist religions. Certainly sexual abuse of children occurs in ALL religions. I think there are many reasons why it is so much easier to point at the Catholic church than other denominations when considering these issues. Among them: The Catholic requirement that priests be celibate is viewed as something of a sexual aberration in and of itself. This makes it much easier to blame the church itself for the misconduct rather than the individual priests engaging in the abuse. Much of the abuse by priests was abuse of children of the same sex. The anti-gay bias of many in this country views same-sex abuse as even more disgusting than abuse of opposite-sex children. The Catholic church has a much more defined bureaucracy and hierarchy than exists in most denominations. It is therefore much easier to hold the church itself responsible for the abuse. The Catholic church has much deeper pockets than many denominations, making them a more attractive target for lawsuits. No lawyer is going to take a case on a contingency basis when there is little chance of getting enough of a settlement to cover their costs of ligation. The typical protestant congregation of a couple of hundred members barely has enough money to cover it's own operating expenses... there is certainly nothing there to pay for a judgment. It is no mystery that the allegations that have been publicly made against protestant clergy have generally been made against pastors of the protestant "mega-churches" or wealthy televangelists. The overseeing organizations of protestant religions have nowhere near the wealth of the Catholic church. Also, because of a much less defined bureaucracy and hierarchy it would be much more difficult to prove that the controlling organization had any responsibility for the abuse. Protestant clergy are hired by the individual church, they are not "placed" by the denomination's organization. This is not to say that abuse has not occurred within the Catholic church because it certainly has. This abuse needs to continue to be addressed and steps taken to prevent it in the future. But I reject this notion that Catholics are somehow morally weak by continuing to be Catholics.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The Catholic church has much deeper pockets than many denominations, making them a more attractive target for lawsuits." As it turns out, not as much as you'd think. Mahony had to take money from the cemetery fund, a fund used for perpetual care, to pay off the settlements. In other words, he took dead people's money to pay off the victims and protect the abusers. Then he lied to his parishioners about where the money came from. This would be embezzlement anywhere but the Catholic Church. <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/09/local/la-me-church-cemetery-fund-20130210" target="_blank">http://articles.latimes.com/20...20130210</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>While nowhere near as strong as the anti-Mormon bias found here, it is there just the same.<< Actually, it's not at all. The abuse scandal is not a matter of a few bad apples and greedy people targeting the church for lawsuits. The abuse scandal is the story of a widespread culture of raping children and then, as a matter of policy, covering it up. Let me make that perfectly clear: It has been the official policy of the Catholic Church to 1) Not report abuse to the authorities, 2) Transfer but not defrock abusive priests (a decision Joseph Ratzinger himself made in at least one documented case) and 3) Keep any evidence internal and hidden away from authorities. This is a systemic, worldwide issue that has been well-documented. Asking members of a faith why they would continue to contribute to an organization who has had, as its policy, the covering up of abuse of children, is not "anti-Catholic bias." The only way this could be called "anti bias" is because it's a religion. If, for example, it was discovered that a large retail corporation had a policy to cover up decades of rampant sexual abuse, would it be called "anti bias" to ask someone why they still shopped there? Just because it has the word "church" in its name doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned or held accountable.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm a Catholic who thinks the criticism of the church with regards to the priest scandal is justified. That said, I don't think it is the sole representation of the Church.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I admit that I have a bias against the Roman church these days. I tend to be biased against organizations that cover up child abuse while denying marriage to consenting adults, that encourage the spread of HIV through a refusal to acknowledge the necessity of condom use in high risk areas, and who actively campaign against women's health and autonomy. I fully acknowledge the good that the Roman church has done, especially in things like health care and service to the poor. But I also acknowledge that much of that work is being done by the women of faith who are denied positions within the clergy even as they act as God's and the Church's hands and heart in the world. And not only are they being denied positions in the clergy and leadership, they are being actively silenced by this Pope. I tend to be biased against groups that actively campaign against civil rights and who insist that women keep to their place and stop being so vocal and visible.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<So what do you call an ex-Pope?>> The first thing that came to mind was the Irving Berlin song "What Can You Do With a General?"
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Heard a rumour that the Pope was fired. DEFINITELY untrue. What the #^$& could you possibly do to get fired from the catholic church?" -Ricky Gervais
Originally Posted By mawnck Tweet from pourmecoffee: >>Dick Morris: Romney will be new Pope in landslide.<<
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost <<<I admit that I have a bias against the Roman church these days. I tend to be biased against organizations that cover up child abuse while denying marriage to consenting adults, that encourage the spread of HIV through a refusal to acknowledge the necessity of condom use in high risk areas, and who actively campaign against women's health and autonomy.>>> I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. What the church wants, doesn't want or encourages, is mostly ignored by today's Catholic. I got married 40 years ago, in a Catholic church and promptly went on our honeymoon completely ignoring the ban on birth control. That was 40 years ago, and it wasn't unusual. Very few Catholics follow those rules. <<<What the #^$& could you possibly do to get fired from the catholic church?" -Ricky Gervais>>> The much bigger question would be WHO would be able to fire him? Would God call him in the office and tell him that they were downsizing? Following one of the statements someone made earlier that since he was elected via Gods influence, wouldn't it stand to reason that it would have been God speaking when he decided to step down?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Would God call him in the office and tell him that they were downsizing? << I thought that up until now, God was technically the one who fired ALL of them.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Very few Catholics follow those rules.<< Very few U.S. and European Catholics follow those rules. They have that luxury. In Africa, where the Church could be a tremendous force for good and stopping the spread of AIDS, they don't because condoms are naughty and lady parts make Jesus upset, apparently.
