the new pope,whats really in this guys past?

[hypnotic4502]

We can believe what we wish about Benedict XVI's youthful nationalism or lack thereof. What we do know from his letter is that as recently as 2001, he supported and encouraged the drawing of a curtain of secrecy over widespread sexual abuse by clergy.

Ratzinger is also the author of a May 2001 letter to bishops stating that the "Crimine solicitationies" law (regarding strict secrecy in sex abuse cases) is still in effect.

The law to which Ratzinger's letter referred was issued by Pope John XXIII 40 years ago. The law itself is chilling, as it describes a mandatory condition of secrecy for both the perpetrators and victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to `be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

[...] Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases `in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.

Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.

The accusers say Vatican-based Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who heads the Vatican office to safeguard the faith and the morals of the church, quietly made the lawsuit go away and shelved it. There was no investigation and the accusers weren't asked a single question or asked for a statement. He was appointed by the pope to investigate the entire sex abuse scandal in the church in recent days. But when approached by ABCNEWS in Rome last week with questions of allegations against Maciel, Ratzinger became visibly upset and actually slapped this reporter's hand. "Come to me when the moment is given," Ratzinger told ABCNEWS, "not yet." "Cardinal Ratzinger is sheltering Maciel, protecting him," said Berry, who expressed concerns that no response was being given to the allegations against the man charged with sex abuse. "These men knelt and kissed the ring of Cardinal Ratzinger when they filed the case in Rome. And a year-and-a-half later, he takes those accusations and aborts them, just stuffs them."
more here :

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/19/184327/493

[phukraut]

Should this be in the Philosophy forum? It sounds like a Politics issue, unless there is something I've missed?

[Lebell]

I agree.

Moved to Politics.

[Locobot]

Really who cares? Unless you're Roman Catholic and from Honduras you're not going to pay any attention to this guy. Just because the last pope was occasionally a decent human being doesn't mean this one has to follow suit.

[energus]

Originally Posted by Locobot

Really who cares? Unless you're Roman Catholic and from Honduras you're not going to pay any attention to this guy. Just because the last pope was occasionally a decent human being doesn't mean this one has to follow suit.

Sadly I have to agree. It is a shame however that the most powerfull non goverment leader in the world (or is the vatican a dictatorship?) is an aging man that does not connect to the "real" world anymore. His views on birth control, same sex marriages and women are archaic and if said by anyone else but someone from the clergy would be liable for a date in court.

[roachboy]

i would kinda echo the above: i actually had a moment of vague hope for the church--which i track as a function of my background, not as a function of any actual belief--when stories floating the possibilities of an african pope, not because of any particular assumptions about ideology (and african pope could be as conservative as any other) but because i thought that some of the church's more destructive positions (on birth control for example) would be more likely abandoned if the pope had something approaching an appreciation of its effects in real time.
i did not let myself think that this same logic might lead toward a re-opening of the space for liberation theology--i assume that the reactionary college of cardinals would never even nominate someone remotely sympthetic to follow jp2, who "silenced" liberation theology because he thought is "commie".
nor did i expect any change from the church with reference to self-protection, in its crudest form, llike you saw across the sex abuse scandals.

even with all that said, i am still appalled that that ultra-reactionary shitheel ratzinger was elected.

[kutulu]

As much as I believe in safe sex and allowing gay marriage, why does the Catholic Church have to change their doctrine just to make it fit with the times? If they believe that God only wants marriage to be between a man and a woman than we should respect their position. However, it does not mean that US laws should consider the stance of the Catholic Church when deciding if gay marriage shoud be allowed.

Same goes for birth control. If they think it's a sin than why the fuck should they support it?

[Manx]

Originally Posted by kutulu

As much as I believe in safe sex and allowing gay marriage, why does the Catholic Church have to change their doctrine just to make it fit with the times? If they believe that God only wants marriage to be between a man and a woman than we should respect their position. However, it does not mean that US laws should consider the stance of the Catholic Church when deciding if gay marriage shoud be allowed.

Same goes for birth control. If they think it's a sin than why the fuck should they support it?

In principle, I agree. But my question then becomes: what is the baseline?

A few hundred years ago, it was doctrine to burn people at the stake. If you follow some interpretations of the Bible, it's a sin to eat shellfish and wear mixed textile clothing.

So where is the baseline, mutually agreed upon interpretation of "the word of God"?

It doesn't exist, naturally. Instead of dealing within the inherent nature of Catholic doctrine to change over time it seems there is a rigorous "back-to-basics" philosophy which isn't really a back-to-basics philosophy, but simply a hardline, increase the opposition to specific "sins" philosophy. The Pope has already come out against the Spanish gay marriage accord - this is the same man who so adamantly favored hiding the Church's sexual abuse scandals.

Is the word of God according to Catholics such that gay marriage is a sin worthy of denunciation while pedophilia is not?

I doubt it. But he is the Pope, so he should know, right?

[Ilow]

Well i already don't like Benny 16's rhetoric. Rather than simply saying that homosexuality does not align with the church's beliefs and that he believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman, he goes on about the wicked "iniquity" of homosexuality. I would still oppose him if he stated it the first way, but I would at least respect him a bit more.
The Catholic church shouldn't have to change it's beliefs to conform directly with society as much as re-evaluate them in light of current social climate. Since it is only an interpretation of the bible's meaning and not simply a literal phrase I don't think that would be so bad.

[Locobot]

Originally Posted by kutulu

As much as I believe in safe sex and allowing gay marriage, why does the Catholic Church have to change their doctrine just to make it fit with the times? If they believe that God only wants marriage to be between a man and a woman than we should respect their position. However, it does not mean that US laws should consider the stance of the Catholic Church when deciding if gay marriage shoud be allowed.

Same goes for birth control. If they think it's a sin than why the fuck should they support it?

AIDS? Kind of a problem in Africa, and everywhere else.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by kutulu

As much as I believe in safe sex and allowing gay marriage, why does the Catholic Church have to change their doctrine just to make it fit with the times? If they believe that God only wants marriage to be between a man and a woman than we should respect their position. However, it does not mean that US laws should consider the stance of the Catholic Church when deciding if gay marriage shoud be allowed.

Same goes for birth control. If they think it's a sin than why the fuck should they support it?

The liberal theologan POV is that that our understanding of God is not static and that as our understanding changes, so should the ways that we apply our faith.

The one example, homosexuality is a good one for this.

The ancient Hebrews thought that the only after life was living through your (male) heir, therefore (male) homosexuality was literally an eternal death sentence.

We do not believe this anymore. Coupled with our modern understanding of biology, it is clear to me and many that our faith response to homosexuality needs to change.