Pope Benedict XVI Doesn't Want To Talk About Molestation Comitted By Priests Recently
 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...b=TopStoriesV2

So why aren't we firing these guys left and right? Where normal child molesters are found out, go to jail and talk about how being a person of authority or a person who society trusts helped them to have sex with young children, priests get found out and... the Pope covers for them?

Is this what's going on?

Gotta know when to hold em and when to fold em, I'd remain silent too if I thought that failing my diplomacy OR bluff check would result in global uproar.

We can't fire them. God hired them.

Actually, yes, a priest CAN be fired, in a manner of speaking. It's just generally not done because of the utter dearth of them and the process is rather complicated.

EDIT: To put it this way, there is nothing in the system capable of managing the kind of mass issues going on right now.

Also, you know, like 99.9999999% of priests don't ever do anything wrong, just like 99.9999999% of all ships and planes passing through the Bermuda Triangle make it just fine. It's just the tiny percentage of the ones that do shit that you always hear about.

Yeah, but when the current Pope turns out to have helped these people stay in positions of power and went out of his way to make sure these things stayed hidden from the public, because he didn't want the church to look bad, I think the actual percentage stops mattering. Pope Sidious, please retire and/or die. Thank you.

Do I hear people questioning the infallibility of the pope? I think I do. Don't you know the guy's infallible? There is clearly some faulty logic in your reasoning that the pope covering up molestation is wrong. Firstly , it's based on the assumption that the pope can do something wrong. That is your first mistake. Secondly.

So as you can see, this is all part of God's plan for his servants.

Amen.

It's all a plot by Benedict to draw out the Rebels.

Once they are out in the open, he will show them the true power of a fully functional Death Basilica!

All joking about the Pope and Palpatine being seperated at birth aside, he seriously does look evil. I mean, damn. How he got Popified, I'll never know.

I'm afraid the Deathstar will be quite opperational when your friends arrive, mwahahaha!

http://www.topnews.in/files/PopeBenedictXVI_3.jpg

The obvious answer is that being a diabolical machiavellian schemer isn't quite a disadvantage in the Vatican.

Papal infallability only applies in rare situations when a lot of conditions are met and the pope explicity calls it. As far as I know- this has only ever happened once.
I'm pretty sure when he was letting off pedos he wasn't up in his papal chair issuing the proper decrees and so forth.

Retweet @Fifthfiend:

"Apparently accusing the pope of child molestation makes the baby Jesus cry. Things that do not make the baby Jesus cry; being molested, apparently!"

I'd say more but really there's not much other than "hoshits fire this asshole."

Once might be understating it.

Edit: Not that the essential point doesn't stand.

Only one of those came after papal infallability was actually defined and the rules of it laid out- the rest are retroactive and are debatable/not clearly set out to follow a set of rules like the assumption of Mary.
And it usually best to ignore the earlier popes cause all kinds of shit will come up.

If I remember correctly back then during those wacky middle ages or renaissance one pope was really a woman and she was pregnant. And we all know that women shouldn't be given any power. You gotta keep them in the kitchen.

But like I don't even remember where I heard about that or what the pope's name was and this may be false information but I'm sure that I heard it from somewhere which wasn't internet.

One pope turned the vatican into essentialy a brothel. People are saying Benedict is "Worst pope ever" but he's got a way to go yet.

I hate my religion. Incidentally, if you can understand spanish this song is pretty great concerning the current subject.

Pretty sure BrothelPope was the best pope, Smarty.

http://www.harkavagrant.com/history/popeactionsm.png

JPII for life, suckas!

I fail to see the problem with this? clearly a brothel is a better thing to spend time on the molesting children. I for one would vote for a brothel vatican!

Hey let's talk about the Pope so bad they made a Video Game villain based on him and nobody complained.

I see your Alexander and raise you a John. You see while Benedict may have hidden rapist John 12 actually was a rapist and would rape people seeking the protection of the vatican. Also he made prayers to the Devil.

That's kind of an anachronistic way of looking at it. No... that's a totally anachronistic way of looking at it.

In any case: infallability is totally not all the time.

Borgias represent.

No more than "Hey, I woke up this morning and the Pope is suddenely infalliable when he chooses to be. Oh and so were past Popes at these specific times". You know for being so dogmatic, they tend to make shit up on the fly a lot.

Also haven't seen it mentioned here but apparently a lot of the initial coverups in the 80s/90s were by the Pope himself (as a cardinal at the time). So he got personal reasons for not discussing it.

No, but the thing is: it doesn't seem like the notion of infallability was invented in 1870. Both ways of looking at it are anachronistic, because both you and the Church are disregarding what infallability might have been at the time itself, taking the definition of 1870 as the sole possible criterion for it. You're rejecting what they're saying that infallability is... but you're accepting what they're saying that infallability isn't.

I'm not saying that any other criterion that might be more "time appropriate" is going to be worth a damn... I really have no idea about the detail of this.

Well, that's the paradox of dogma for you! Which cosmological plane now never existed for sure after having totally existed for sure for a long while? Limbo?

That's what I hate most about the pope. Their acts of making things up as they go along go well beyond mere reinterpretation.

Is it really any surprise that some Protestants believe the papistry itself to be the antichrist?

I mean...along with Obama and Bart Stupak.

They're blaming the current pope because he himself specifically was helping with a lot of the cover ups when he was a cardinal.

Well before that the idea had been discussed but never really examined. It was just sort of a given that the Holy Spirit was guiding the pope- probably. And the idea of ex cathedra/different levels of papal stuff was around but never laid out officially. Then they sat down an ddecided to make it official and rulise it. It pretty much how the same as old countries getting laws and constitution but I just like hassling the papacy. And I need to make wild accusations and exaggerations bordering on falsehoods cause that's how I roll.
We need the anti-popes back. They'd sort all this mess out.
Edit: The Avignon ones, not the myriad of other ones.

My personal favorite excuse so far is "the Devil made them do it!"

Back when JP2 was Pope, Benedict was a cardinal. He was the one specifically responsible for covering it up. John Paul probably didn't even know about it.

As long as the anti-pope never comes in contact with the pope. The resulting release of energy would be terrible.

Think about what we can learn though! A macroscale demonstration of inversion properties!

I thought the catholic motto was that everyone does lots of wrongs, and must be scorned for it?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Uc_ge86fgl...-benedict2.jpg

The problem with the jedi is that they don't accept how balance works, if they actually wanted to save people they'd diminish their own light.

Y'know, I can totally understand them wanting to handle these things internally(not that I necessarily agree). It could easily turn into a witch hunt.

That said; if you want to handle it internally, you have to actually handle it.

Are you trying to imply that God isn't handling it?

God doesn't do his bit until later on.

God. I don't know what Catholics you've come into contact with, but keep them the hell away from me. That pretty much goes against everything I've ever heard.

Doesn't God transcend time? If so then he's already done his bit.

Well, Catholicism AKA christrianity vr 1.X framework supports programs like oldTestbbl.dll which can be exploited in all sorts of crazy ways, of course most of it's users are fairly safe... but still there's always the potential that they could get tons of malware on their HDD.
Catholics might want to upgrade to protestant aka christianity vr 2.X framework as it doesn't contain oldTestbbl.dll and has been cleaned of most of the sourcecode that christianity vr 1.X took from the pagan networking and the naturalistOSX which tend to conflict with it's everyday running.

Personally I run taoism OS from liveCD, basically the linux of cultural perspective.

Old Testament Parody:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bar3GOzDNzg

More nerdy culture metaphors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c8an2XZ3MU

Tao Te Ching:
http://http-server.carleton.ca/~rgray/TaoTeChing/

HOW CAN ATHEISM FUNCTION UNDER THIS METAPHOR?

Does he?

Going outside.

The nerdyness of that metaphor caused my Pants to hike themselves to Urkelian Heights... I can't.. I can't see. It's so dark, and so tight, I hear... I hear snort-laughing god save me.

So, what's Orthodox Christianity, then? 0.x?

Oi! I'll have you know Machiavelli was very much against evil world-conquering popes.

He still got the adjective coined after him.

All part of his machiavellian plan, I'm sure.

Wouldn't that equate to something like advanced meditation and/or astral projection?

Words cannot describe the seething (mostly platonic) hatred I have of you. HOW CAN WE BOTH LIKE TAOISM!? :gonk:

That would still require Theology software.

iPad users.

I agreed with this, until I learned he's the reason everyone thinks homosexuality is a sin.

Infaliability issue, easy way to think of it is more like this
Doom's word is lawhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ozord/doom.jpg

When it comes to interprutation of the bible and holy doctrine, the Pope is infaliable because by the Pope saying it, it is automatically church canon and word of God. Long as its in reguards to the beliefs of the catholic church whatever he says is not only the truth, but retroactively has been the truth for all of time. Everything outside of this can be a mistake however.

There were bits in the Bible that sort of said that already, anyway. And I doubt that he's the first Pope to consider it a sin.

I never understood how homosexuality is a sin to the church but molesting little boys is generally a-ok! I guess the bigger the balls the greater the sin?

and guess who says what info is in the bible? The Pope. Everyone thinks the bible today is the same as the bible 2000 years ago. Its been editted quite alot over the years and you'd notice before then no one ever mentioned any hinting at homosexuality as a sin. Heck 100 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find a christian admitting it existed, or that women were people

I dunno man. I've got that Mormon bible at home, and I don't know how recently that's been through changes, but it pretty much says that God blew up Sodom and Gomorra because the people liked having gay sex.

Untrue. This is very clearly outlined by the vatican- the pope is only infallable if he is speaking ex cathedra which is a very well defined set of conditions and he needs to clearly do it with intention. Any random interpretation of the bible clearly and emphatically is not infallable.

Didn't Lot(I think?) sleep with his daughters after that and it was alright cause ya know, he was drunk, and might be the last man left?

His daughters got him drunk and seduced him yeah, after his wife died by turning into a pillar of salt.

and/or pedophelia and every other kind of freakyness you can think of

What's the debate for? Can't we just agree that the Pope is a pedophile protecting asshole who steps on peoples rights and spreads suffering around. Fuck the pope, fuck the whole Vatican.

Do you mean the Book of Mormon? Because my impression is that it's a document separate from the rest of Biblical tradition and seems to have originated in 1830.

Not that understand why one would judge the Mormons in particular incapable of interpretation of ancient traditions as more clearly reflecting their own prejudices.

Actually, there's a version of the Bible with what's called "The Joseph Smith translation" that has footnotes where the guy says what something is really supposed to say, but even without that it seems to make it pretty clear the Sodom and Gomorra thing was about the gays and such. I mean, I figured that's why it was called sodomy. Guess I was wrong?

No, you're right Non. I think it was the people of Sodom wanted to see lot's guests so they could "know" them. And the guests were male angels. And then they refused Lot's offer of his virgin daughters and went crazy cause there was nice angel male ass for them they couldn't have. They got all yuppity and God said Lot, get the fuck out of dodge cause I be blown this here place up yo! So lot ran, his wife looked back and became a salt pile while Sodom was smacked down with a People's Elbow delivered from god yo!

God was gonna burn that place in the first place, he just sent the angels to warn lot

And all the freakishness we'll never be able to think of now that's it's gone. Think of the volumes of fetishes that were lost in the fall of Sodom! I bet Two Girls One Cup was just a parlor show to them.

Oh, by the way, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id2pJp9ACg8

I've always envisioned God being an over-the-top WWE type kind of individual. This song makes it seem more so. I can just imagine him Giving sinners the Stone Cold Stunner before sending them to hell.

I thought the pope apologized about molestation that happened in england recently? It's nice to know the pope has double standards!

Wasn't that just a bishop? I thought it was, anyway.
Not like I really give a crap about news involving The Church. Unless it involves the Papal Army marching down Europe.

I suggest you watch that Penn & Teller episode pocheros linked to. You know how that show is, but watch it with some media skillsorz and I'm sure you can tell which parts are worth listening to and which aren't. Personally I think that every part of that episode was good. Even though I don't always like how they oversimplify things, in this they didn't seem to need to do that as much.

Oh, I watched it, actually.
It was a very interesting listen, but I heard very little that I didn't already think myself.

In short, and I am really, genuinely sorry if I offend, what I heard was:
"The Church's a bunch of evil jerks, but it's okay 'cause Il Papa's got a line with God, and He hasn't burned the Basilica down, right?"

Which is pretty much what I thought already.

Are you suuure? Remember, nothing is true.

I thought everything was true.

"Nothing is true, everything is permitted."
Since somebody brought up Alexander VI earlier, why not?

Requiescat in Pace, bastardo

Atheism technically is an opinion, not a culture.

The Allied Atheist Alliance disagrees with you!

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/k...orKaos/aaa.jpg

Pretty much every iteration of the story has the sin of Sodom as something different. Wiki sums up most of the major positions on the subject nicely.

That said, I don't know any versions that have the story as "Sodomites had gay sex so God blew them up" except for the modern fundamentalist wacko version. The people are generally depicted as being pretty depraved all around, kinda like raider-types in your typical Mel Gibson style post apocalyptic wasteland. Looking at the angel-rape attempt as a gay thing is... well it's like trying to persecute someone who rapes a man for the crime of homosexuality. I don't think God was gonna be cool with it if they were girls.