Pope accuses Sex abuse victims with slander?

[AvilaSurfer]

Once again, and for the last time, “widely reported” means nothing. “Accurately reported” is almost non existent. Take your pope bashing out of OBOB. Nobody believes your crap.

 

[Glaucus]

Once again, and for the last time, “widely reported” means nothing. “Accurately reported” is almost non existent. Take your pope bashing out of OBOB. Nobody believes your crap.

Once again, it seems to me that you're one of the few who doesn't believe this story. Your use of nobody is perplexing.

Even if the reports are false, it is nobody's fault but Francis that people believe he would say this.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

So you blamevtbe pope for stupid people. And the bashing continues. Take it to GT.

 

[Glaucus]

So you blamevtbe pope for stupid people. And the bashing continues. Take it to GT.

I'm criticizing careless words by Francis, not the office of the papacy.

Take a deep breath. (I read that somewhere)

 

[chevyontheriver]

nm

I'm taking a few days off.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

It’s unsubstantiated crap that you seem to like. Nobody believes your lies.

Nobody believed the victims *insert country here* when they came forward. The common denominator here besides the abuse, is that the church fought the victims tooth and nail.

Are you on any level even the least bit concerned that something might have happened?

I submit that a good Catholic wants to support the vitims and bring to light the crimes comitted against the most vulnerable. I really not concerned if someones feelings get hurt and their only defense is to call others names.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

From what I gathered from my reading of the articles it seems that Pope Francis is only saying that there's no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the bishop without proof.

I realize some folks think that if the priest is guilty the bishop must've known about it, but can that truly be proven? Unless the bishop was present, or the priest admits to having confessed it to the bishop I can't imagine there's any proof that the bishop is guilty of wrongdoing. Even then is the bishop a mandatory reporter of such abuse during a confession?

Also, for the record I have no dog in the fight as I'm not Catholic. Just my interpretation and opinion.

Last, I'd like to add that I will pray for the victims of the abuse, and the perpetrator. This seems like the work of the evil one. Ruining the lives of innocents who were abused, and dividing us as Christians by using instances like this to take some people away from Christianity.

Is it the complacency and denial that makes all of this ridiculous. No one is arguing that the pope is guilty for what a priest does, but the Pope is responsible for the well being of the laity - especially in spirit - right? If you accept the title of Vicarius Christi, then you have responsibility. That is the whole reason why Christ beat the Church leaders for their purposeful complacency and error in instruction, and strove with tax collectors.

There is a long history of the Church (or any figurehead) knowing full well what goes on in their "house," and and turning their heads. Whats more, the appaling accusations thrown around about some of us allegedly jumping to conclusions (when we have been fully explicit about our intentions) further contrbutes to the wilful ignirance, and complacency that allows these figurehead to get away with what they do!

It is almost sacrilegious to bring up any tangential critique of the pope.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

HE DID NOT SAY WHAT THE OP CLAIMS. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

 

[Glaucus]

HE DID NOT SAY WHAT THE OP CLAIMS. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

Source?

Not wanting it to be so, doesn't make it not so.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Source?

Not wanting it to be so, doesn't make it not so.

LOL. There is no source. Good lord, do you understand how to read and comprehend?

 

[Glaucus]

LOL. There is no source. Good lord, do you understand how to read and comprehend?

Probably better than somebody who uses "nobody" so incorrectly.

 

[fat wee robin]

If someone has experienced being molested by a steward of the Catholic Church, or even knows someone close to them who has been molested by a priest - is that bashing Catholics?

If someone has experienced being molested by a priest, or knows someone close to them who has been molested by a priest, and has also seen the act swept under the rug when they told someone (like they are supposed to do) - is that bashing Catholics?

Remember, we are talking about children for the majority of these cases (i.e. no real power to say "no" against an adult human.)

As far as a conspiracy to implicate the Catholic church in unfounded, unwarranted accusations of abuse: take that problem up with the plethora of evidence that is against the institution and its way of handling abuse within the church. We are not stupid; this stuff happens very often, and is often kept secret either by zealotry, Church incredulity, or downright lies. It has been a culture of the Church kept secret by its leaders, and [un]consciously preserved by the some in the body.

Convicted soul: A priest-perpetrator of child sexual abuse shares his story

Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country - Wikipedia

And, there is a culture of making the victim(s) feel like they are stupid, or doing something wrong.

The Catholic church must stop blaming victims: children cannot consent to sex | Dino Nocivelli

Italian priest draws fire after victim-blaming rape survivor

Catholic Church claimed child sex abuse victims ‘consented’


Now, am I of the lot that separates criticism of the individuals, and of institutions. The Catholic Church is an institution whose stewards are besmirching the perceived character of the institution. The Catholic individual is one I judge based on what they show as substance. With that said, I am judging the pope's actions based on the sum of [academic] information from the past and in the contemporary. There is a history of doing exactly what the pope did. And, this could actually be one of few cases in which it is something more to the story. However, their definitive and deep history does not afford the institution the benefit of the doubt.

Just think about this for a minute: if the Catholics were Black or Latino Americans, and there was only a fraction of demonstrative proof linking them to these type of accusations, the Church would be considered a den of animals and vile creatures who couldn't help but to be who they were. There would be no pit deep enough to store the lot of them by the justice system, and no death deemed too harsh.

I am not so ignorant or prejudiced to do as is usually done - be quick to call someone an "[insert 'not-so-subtle dog whistle' phrase here]" as it were, just because a few behave the way they do.

However, I won't deny evidence in general - especially when considering persons, not the entire lot, or culture. There is a plethora of demonstrable, anecdotal, suggestive and unethical/immoral evidence liking several stewards of the Church to certain behaviors.

Maybe to be balanced and just ,you should start a thread about protestant abuse ,as I have never seen anything remotely equivalent concerning these churches .
In fact I have never seen anything at all on this subject on Christian forums of any name .

 

[fat wee robin]

It’s unsubstantiated crap that you seem to like. Nobody believes your lies.

Denial and insult , two marks of evil .

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Maybe to be balanced and just ,you should start a thread about protestant abuse ,as I have never seen anything remotely equivalent concerning these churches .
In fact I have never seen anything at all on this subject on Christian forums of any name .

But, I was responding to a thread about Catholic abuse.

There is no discrepancy in fairness if I am on topic, and in context.

Overall, you are right: abuse happens on every single echelon of existence - especially human/human abuse. However, the intent would be circular if I made a protestant thread in response to a catholic thread on abuse.

Someone would ask for a thread on "abuse in atheism," and then "abuse in mysticism..." It would be a distraction. I felt I was within the bounds of the OP.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Well the OP is false, so there’s that....

 

[fat wee robin]

But, I was responding to a thread about Catholic abuse.

There is no discrepancy in fairness if I am on topic, and in context.

Overall, you are right: abuse happens on every single echelon of existence - especially human/human abuse. However, the intent would be circular if I made a protestant thread in response to a catholic thread on abuse.

Someone would ask for a thread on "abuse in atheism," and then "abuse in mysticism..." It would be a distraction. I felt I was within the bounds of the OP.

It is not a thread about abuse as such ,but what the pope said ,or did not say . You made a very long post ,about détails which have filled thousands of pages in every country in the world many times , and to do so again is Malicious ,unless there were reports about new abuse .
I am not known for supporting the Pope ,but I am meticulous about fairness and you are not fair here .

 

[Ygrene Imref]

It is not a thread about abuse as such ,but what the pope said ,or did not say . You made a very long post ,about détails which have filled thousands of pages in every country in the world many times , and to do so again is Malicious ,unless there were reports about new abuse .
I am not known for supporting the Pope ,but I am meticulous about fairness and you not are not fair here .

It isn't malicious; I was called out for "bashing" the pope and catholicism because I said, "WOW. \\But I'm not surprised."

When I substantiated why my statement was not a bash (with the "very long post, about details which have filled thousands of pages in every country in the world many times...,") I got a response from you that it was superfluous. So, when I explained why I did what I did, I now have you telling me it is malicious.

If the information was as available as you say it was, I wouldn't have had to defend why I was not surprised by the OP. I made sure to cover all of my bases in a flow and stream of consciousness, in order to eliminate pages of volleys asking for "more evidence," or claiming the source isn't sufficient.

I think you may be unfair in your assertions about my intent.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Even if the reports are false, it is nobody's fault but Francis that people believe he would say this.

This is what I was alluding to when I originally posted I wasn't surprised.

I said WOW, because "Assuming this is true..."

 

[Michie]

The reports aren't false so far. Even Cardinal O'Malley has spoken out.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

The reports aren't false so far. Even Cardinal O'Malley has spoken out.

If Cardinal Sean spoke out, which he absolutely did, then the Cardinal himself a close confidant of the Pontiff surely believes the Pope made the statements.

In Cardinal Seans statement he condenmed the Popes comment but did state he has witnessed the Pope’s compassion for those who suffered so greatly from abuse.