|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| He's also a former nazi. |
Since joining the Hitler Youth was required by all his age at the time, that's no more damning than saying that "He's also a former student."
| Quote: |
| Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth � membership being legally required after December 1939[4] � but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings[5]. His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was killed by the Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics. In 1943 while still in seminary, he was drafted at age 16 into the German anti-aircraft corps. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the War in summer 1945. He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year. |
http://bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/new_pope_defied_nazis.htm |
Sunday Times April 17 2005
| Quote: |
| Although there is no suggestion that he was involved in any atrocities, his service may be contrasted with the attitude of John Paul II, who took part in anti-Nazi theatre performances in his native Poland |
If his later actions contrasted greatly with his membership of the nazis i might consider that I was being a little unfair but this is the same person who
1) Fiercely opposed Turkeys membership into the EU because it is not a 'christian' country.
2) Will not allow homosexuals to become priests even if they are celibate and yet
3) has no problem with covering up the crimes of paedophiles in the same church
So from the point of view of bigotry, homophobia and disregard for human rights I doubt he exactly stood out like a sore thumb amongst all the other nazis! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| prettyinscarlet777 wrote: |
| I used to be a Catholic. It's a religion full of doctrines created by man |
What do you think every religion is, homeboy?
Oh hold up.. you lost me here..
Well, I'll just quote you in my sig in really small letters, thereby showing you what's what.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
merkurix
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Not far from the deep end.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If his later actions contrasted greatly with his membership of the nazis i might consider that I was being a little unfair but this is the same person who
1) Fiercely opposed Turkeys membership into the EU because it is not a 'christian' country. |
It's not like his opinion will carry any political clout. He doesn't have the credentials or any official say in what the EU decides what and what not to do. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and it's not like this opinion is ex-cathedra or something.
| Quote: |
| 2) Will not allow homosexuals to become priests even if they are celibate and yet |
Homosexuality might be a bit difficult to prove, even moreso if one makes a choice to be celibate. So there is really no way to know unless the person is out. In any event, the Catholic Church's (moral, not political) doctrine on homosexuality is crystal clear (as unfortunate as that may seem to some).
| Quote: |
| 3) has no problem with covering up the crimes of paedophiles in the same church |
No offense, but this statement sounds like pure conjecture. Can you offer credible proof of this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's all the proof you need.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| prettyinscarlet777 wrote: |
| I used to be a Catholic. It's a religion full of doctrines created by man and the devil. It teaches outward religion not inward change through Jesus Christ. It leads many into bondage. The pope is not infallible. Mary is not our mediator. What nonsense. |
My poison is betterthan your poison.
Get off the high horse, there is no superior belief system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cosmo wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Have you not stopped to consider the devil, not god, is speaking to you? |
You may have a point there.
Some hot red horny guy with a big fork is gonna plunge it up yo' ass.
Baste you, rotate you on a rotisserie grill at max heat.
What a concept.
Kentucky Fried Retard
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2306/mm2avatartb0.jpg |
Yes, go on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| merkurix wrote: |
| Quote: |
If his later actions contrasted greatly with his membership of the nazis i might consider that I was being a little unfair but this is the same person who
1) Fiercely opposed Turkeys membership into the EU because it is not a 'christian' country. |
It's not like his opinion will carry any political clout. He doesn't have the credentials or any official say in what the EU decides what and what not to do. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and it's not like this opinion is ex-cathedra or something.
| Quote: |
| 2) Will not allow homosexuals to become priests even if they are celibate and yet |
Homosexuality might be a bit difficult to prove, even moreso if one makes a choice to be celibate. So there is really no way to know unless the person is out. In any event, the Catholic Church's (moral, not political) doctrine on homosexuality is crystal clear (as unfortunate as that may seem to some).
| Quote: |
| 3) has no problem with covering up the crimes of paedophiles in the same church |
No offense, but this statement sounds like pure conjecture. Can you offer credible proof of this? |
Proof = The Arch-diocese of Boston. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
merkurix
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Not far from the deep end.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| merkurix wrote: |
| Quote: |
If his later actions contrasted greatly with his membership of the nazis i might consider that I was being a little unfair but this is the same person who
1) Fiercely opposed Turkeys membership into the EU because it is not a 'christian' country. |
It's not like his opinion will carry any political clout. He doesn't have the credentials or any official say in what the EU decides what and what not to do. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and it's not like this opinion is ex-cathedra or something.
| Quote: |
| 2) Will not allow homosexuals to become priests even if they are celibate and yet |
Homosexuality might be a bit difficult to prove, even moreso if one makes a choice to be celibate. So there is really no way to know unless the person is out. In any event, the Catholic Church's (moral, not political) doctrine on homosexuality is crystal clear (as unfortunate as that may seem to some).
| Quote: |
| 3) has no problem with covering up the crimes of paedophiles in the same church |
No offense, but this statement sounds like pure conjecture. Can you offer credible proof of this? |
Proof = The Arch-diocese of Boston. |
Archdiocese of Boston what? This isn't saying anything.
If you are talking about the incompetence of the archbishop in failing to preperly deal with the actions of one priest then yes, he admittedly acknowledge incompetence and offered his resignation of archbishop as penance. This was also a time when JPII was pope and it was he who accepted his resignation and the archbishop was moved to Rome as a demoted archpriest who does a lot of odd jobs nowadays. He can no longer be charge of the pastoral care of a diocese.
But I still fail to see how Pope Benedict XVI himself is connected to the goings-on at the Archdiocese of Boston. Contrary to popular belief, the Vatican does not have direct control over every single priest or church in the world and the current Pope was not pope during that scandal. I fail to see any proof how he is a paedophile protector. So that proof is a bit flimsy and doesn't seem to hold water. Sorry, I am still not convinced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ratzinger was the former Pope's lead man in charge of dealing with the unfortunate events in the Boston Archdiocese. he did everything possible to prevent more information from comming out to the public. Ratzinger was essentially sent to the States to shut things up.
He did a pretty good job and was awarded with the Popehood (if that's even a word?) for doing so.
And the Catholic Church was hardly forthcomming with the allegations made against them. In fact I'm quite sickened with their actions.
And it wasn't the actions of one child molesting priest. There were several others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| merkurix wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| merkurix wrote: |
| Quote: |
If his later actions contrasted greatly with his membership of the nazis i might consider that I was being a little unfair but this is the same person who
1) Fiercely opposed Turkeys membership into the EU because it is not a 'christian' country. |
It's not like his opinion will carry any political clout. He doesn't have the credentials or any official say in what the EU decides what and what not to do. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and it's not like this opinion is ex-cathedra or something.
| Quote: |
| 2) Will not allow homosexuals to become priests even if they are celibate and yet |
Homosexuality might be a bit difficult to prove, even moreso if one makes a choice to be celibate. So there is really no way to know unless the person is out. In any event, the Catholic Church's (moral, not political) doctrine on homosexuality is crystal clear (as unfortunate as that may seem to some).
| Quote: |
| 3) has no problem with covering up the crimes of paedophiles in the same church |
No offense, but this statement sounds like pure conjecture. Can you offer credible proof of this? |
Proof = The Arch-diocese of Boston. |
Archdiocese of Boston what? This isn't saying anything.
If you are talking about the incompetence of the archbishop in failing to preperly deal with the actions of one priest then yes, he admittedly acknowledge incompetence and offered his resignation of archbishop as penance. This was also a time when JPII was pope and it was he who accepted his resignation and the archbishop was moved to Rome as a demoted archpriest who does a lot of odd jobs nowadays. He can no longer be charge of the pastoral care of a diocese.
But I still fail to see how Pope Benedict XVI himself is connected to the goings-on at the Archdiocese of Boston. Contrary to popular belief, the Vatican does not have direct control over every single priest or church in the world and the current Pope was not pope during that scandal. I fail to see any proof how he is a paedophile protector. So that proof is a bit flimsy and doesn't seem to hold water. Sorry, I am still not convinced. |
Hundreds of victims in Boston. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
And don't you think the priesthood is the perfect refuge for closet homosexuals brought up in religious families?
I really mean this.
Think about. You're a young homosexual male with no outlet to express your true sexuality. Most likely you are brough up in a religious family and by comming out you would more than likley be discriminated against or even ostracised.
So what choice do you have. Continue to live a life of lies and pretend to be something you aren't.
Or you can join the priesthood. A place where you sacrifice your sexuality for God. A place where you can escape your socially stated evil desires.
So some of these homosexual priests devote their life to God. But unfortunately they also have these sweet and impressionable altar boys working close to them. It's no wonder that they get abused. The priests are sexually repressed and this is their only outlet.
The priesthood is an unatural organization. No wonder it's so disfuctional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
merkurix
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Not far from the deep end.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
Ratzinger was the former Pope's lead man in charge of dealing with the unfortunate events in the Boston Archdiocese. he did everything possible to prevent more information from comming out to the public. Ratzinger was essentially sent to the States to shut things up.
He did a pretty good job and was awarded with the Popehood (if that's even a word?) for doing so.
And the Catholic Church was hardly forthcomming with the allegations made against them. In fact I'm quite sickened with their actions.
And it wasn't the actions of one child molesting priest. There were several others. |
One thing is correct. When he was Prefect for the CDoF he was indeed assigned to investigate. Here is one source from a secular source Wikipedia, discussing his response in a most informative way:
| Quote: |
As Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the sexual abuse of minors by priests was his responsibility to investigate from 2001, when that charge was given to the CDF by Pope John Paul II.[3]
As part of the implementation of the norms enacted and promulgated on April 30, 2001 by Pope John Paul II,[4] on May 18, 2001 Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop in the Catholic Church.[5] This letter reminded them of the strict penalties facing those who revealed confidential details concerning enquiries into allegations against priests of certain grave ecclesiastical crimes, including sexual abuse, which were reserved to the jurisdiction of the Congregation. The letter extended the prescription or statute of limitations for these crimes to ten years. However, when the crime is sexual abuse of a minor, the "prescription begins to run from the day on that which the minor completes the eighteenth year of age."[6] Lawyers acting for two alleged victims of abuse in Texas claim that by sending the letter the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.[7] The letter did not, in fact, discourage victims from reporting the abuse itself to the police; the secrecy related rather to the internal investigation of the alleged crime, forbidding all parties to divulge what took place during the Church trial. The Catholic News Service reported that "the letter said the new norms reflected the CDF's traditional "exclusive competence" regarding delicta graviora�Latin for "graver offenses". According to Canon Law experts in Rome, reserving cases of clerical sexual abuse of minors to the CDF is something new. In past eras, some serious crimes by priests against sexual morality, including pedophilia, were handled by that congregation or its predecessor, the Holy Office, but this has not been true in recent years."[8] The promulgation of the norms by Pope John Paul II and the subsequent letter by the then Prefect of the CDF were published in 2001 in Acta Apostolicae Sedis[9] which is the Holy See's official journal, in accordance with the Code of Canon Law,[10] and is disseminated monthly to thousands of libraries and offices around the world.[11]
In 2002, Ratzinger told the Catholic News Service that "less than one percent of priests are guilty of acts of this type."[12] Opponents saw this as ignoring the crimes of those who committed the abuse; others saw it as merely pointing out that this should not taint other priests who live respectable lives.[13][8] Ratzinger's Good Friday reflections in 2005 were interpreted as strongly condemning and regretting the abuse scandals, which largely put to rest the speculation of indifference. Shortly after his election, he told Francis Cardinal George, the Archbishop of Chicago, that he would attend to the matter.[8]
Source: Wikipedia |
I will additionally agree that part of his mission was "damage control." But to say that he went there to "cover it up" is more conjecture. If the media wants to investigate further, they can. If jurisdictions want to prosecute guilty priests, they can do so without any Vatican interference.
And to further say that as a result of this "cover-up" he was rewarded the Papacy is patently ridiculous and doesn't even deserve any kind of logical refutation.
It is possible that there were more, but there was only one high profile prosecution. Most of the cases appear to have been settled to the point of near-bankrupting the archdiocese. I am no apologist for the heinous crimes that took place. If guilty, they ought to prosecute them and punish them to the fullest extent of the law. But there appears to be a lot of "guilty by association" accusations being leveled around here. Is that fair?
I hope this clears things up a bit. I am not trying to be a church apologist. I just want folks to back up their talk with proof before letting wild accusations and conjectures fly off the handle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| merkurix wrote: |
| endo wrote: |
Ratzinger was the former Pope's lead man in charge of dealing with the unfortunate events in the Boston Archdiocese. he did everything possible to prevent more information from comming out to the public. Ratzinger was essentially sent to the States to shut things up.
He did a pretty good job and was awarded with the Popehood (if that's even a word?) for doing so.
And the Catholic Church was hardly forthcomming with the allegations made against them. In fact I'm quite sickened with their actions.
And it wasn't the actions of one child molesting priest. There were several others. |
One thing is correct. When he was Prefect for the CDoF he was indeed assigned to investigate. Here is one source from a secular source Wikipedia, discussing his response in a most informative way:
| Quote: |
As Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the sexual abuse of minors by priests was his responsibility to investigate from 2001, when that charge was given to the CDF by Pope John Paul II.[3]
As part of the implementation of the norms enacted and promulgated on April 30, 2001 by Pope John Paul II,[4] on May 18, 2001 Ratzinger sent a letter to every bishop in the Catholic Church.[5] 1)This letter reminded them of the strict penalties facing those who revealed confidential details concerning enquiries into allegations against priests of certain grave ecclesiastical crimes, including sexual abuse, which were reserved to the jurisdiction of the Congregation. The letter extended the prescription or statute of limitations for these crimes to ten years. However, when the crime is sexual abuse of a minor, the "prescription begins to run from the day on that which the minor completes the eighteenth year of age."[6] Lawyers acting for two alleged victims of abuse in Texas claim that by sending the letter the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.[7] The letter did not, in fact, discourage victims from reporting the abuse itself to the police; the secrecy related rather to the internal investigation of the alleged crime, forbidding all parties to divulge what took place during the Church trial. The Catholic News Service reported that "the letter said the new norms reflected the CDF's traditional "exclusive competence" regarding delicta graviora�Latin for "graver offenses". According to Canon Law experts in Rome, reserving cases of clerical sexual abuse of minors to the CDF is something new. In past eras, some serious crimes by priests against sexual morality, including pedophilia, were handled by that congregation or its predecessor, the Holy Office, but this has not been true in recent years."[8] The promulgation of the norms by Pope John Paul II and the subsequent letter by the then Prefect of the CDF were published in 2001 in Acta Apostolicae Sedis[9] which is the Holy See's official journal, in accordance with the Code of Canon Law,[10] and is disseminated monthly to thousands of libraries and offices around the world.[11]
In 2002, Ratzinger told the Catholic News Service that "less than one percent of priests are guilty of acts of this type."[12] Opponents saw this as ignoring the crimes of those who committed the abuse; others saw it as merely pointing out that this should not taint other priests who live respectable lives.[13][8] Ratzinger's Good Friday reflections in 2005 were interpreted as strongly condemning and regretting the abuse scandals, which largely put to rest the speculation of indifference. Shortly after his election, he told Francis Cardinal George, the Archbishop of Chicago, that he would attend to the matter.[8]
Source: Wikipedia |
I will additionally agree that part of his mission was "damage control." But to say that he went there to "cover it up" is more conjecture. If the media wants to investigate further, they can. If jurisdictions want to prosecute guilty priests, they can do so without any Vatican interference.
And to further say that as a result of this "cover-up" he was rewarded the Papacy is patently ridiculous and doesn't even deserve any kind of logical refutation.
It is possible that there were more, but there was only one high profile prosecution. Most of the cases appear to have been settled to the point of near-bankrupting the archdiocese. I am no apologist for the heinous crimes that took place. If guilty, they ought to prosecute them and punish them to the fullest extent of the law. But there appears to be a lot of "guilty by association" accusations being leveled around here. Is that fair?
I hope this clears things up a bit. I am not trying to be a church apologist. I just want folks to back up their talk with proof before letting wild accusations and conjectures fly off the handle. |
Read it again.
1) This effectively means no one is to blow the whistle to outsiders.
2) This means we can't stop the victims from revealing what happened but we don't want any inside doing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| merkurix wrote: |
| Quote: |
If his later actions contrasted greatly with his membership of the nazis i might consider that I was being a little unfair but this is the same person who
1) Fiercely opposed Turkeys membership into the EU because it is not a 'christian' country. |
It's not like his opinion will carry any political clout. He doesn't have the credentials or any official say in what the EU decides what and what not to do. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and it's not like this opinion is ex-cathedra or something.
| Quote: |
| 2) Will not allow homosexuals to become priests even if they are celibate and yet |
Homosexuality might be a bit difficult to prove, even moreso if one makes a choice to be celibate. So there is really no way to know unless the person is out. In any event, the Catholic Church's (moral, not political) doctrine on homosexuality is crystal clear (as unfortunate as that may seem to some).
| Quote: |
| 3) has no problem with covering up the crimes of paedophiles in the same church |
No offense, but this statement sounds like pure conjecture. Can you offer credible proof of this? |
Riiight! The leader of one billion catholics carries no political clout. 
There has never been anything in church teaching to say that there is anything wrong with being a celibate homosexual. To then exclude them from the priesthood is using the position of the papacy to enforce a personal prejudice. That is despicable!
Even moreso when contrasted with their treatment of paedophiles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
merkurix
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Location: Not far from the deep end.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Riiight! The leader of one billion catholics carries no political clout. |
His position on political matters are as weighty as say Queen Elizabeth's or Rowan Williams. They may have strong opinions, but they ultimately really don't matter.
A case in point could be the recognition of same-sex marriages in Spain. The Vatican lamented over this ruling. If he really did have any political clout, don't you think that a fiercely Roman Catholic Spain would not have passed a measure that is so diametrically opposed to the Church's official stance on the issue?
| Quote: |
| There has never been anything in church teaching to say that there is anything wrong with being a celibate homosexual. To then exclude them from the priesthood is using the position of the papacy to enforce a personal prejudice. That is despicable! |
Entrance into the church's priesthood is one that requires a tremendous amount of discernment and training, and the Church will only allow seminarians who have demonstrated a "true calling" for the service of the church, homosexual or not. It is erroneous to think that people should be allowed into the Church's service in order to further repress one's homosexuality or to have safe sanctuary from "homosexual temptations." But the ultimate decision lies with the order in which the novitiate is in to allow him into the priesthood, not the Pope. And in this particular case, the Pope was again, if it is indeed his opinion, was not speaking ex-cathdra.
| Quote: |
| Even moreso when contrasted with their treatment of paedophiles. |
The church has not stopped the prosecution of guilty priests. It is a horrible heinous crime, one should and must hold the individual lawbreakers accountable, but not the entire Church. The Pope sent letters out to bishops warning about breaking the "confessional seal," in which priests are strictly forbidden in outing sinful parties by making confessed sins public. This is a double-edged sword indeed, but why aren't all of the victims coming forward en masse? It's only priests that are bound by the confessional seal, not the laity. It's really telling that people seem to be more content with getting money than getting justice by not pursuing a full criminal investigation and prosecution. In L.A. county, two allegations were made against Cardinal Roger Mahoney which later turned proved to be frivolous. Many dioceses are going bankrupt. There are few people who are going forward with a full prosecution. There is no denying that certain people will be scarred for life. But one needs to also consider that there are some opportunists who are milking the Church for what it's worth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
