Pope Benedict XVI is named in a new lawsuit on child abuse in a case that will test the claims of diplomatic immunity claimed by the Vatican’s lawyers, here. The claims stem from the alleged cover-up of abuse by a priest at a Catholic school in Wisconsin, Father Lawrence Murphy. The lawsuit seeks the names of potentially thousands of similar priests facing “credible allegations of sexual misconduct” against them.
The Illinois man attended the St. John’s School for the Deaf where much of the abuse by Murphy occurred. The Pope has been accused of blocking efforts to defrock Murphy when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
The priest molested as many as 200 boys and the complaint states that the church “knew that there was a high probability that these clerics would sexually molest more children, but sought to protect itself from scandal, sought to keep its income stream going, at the peril of children.”
href=”http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/22/abuse.pope.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T2″>here.
Tootie said:
“[God] couldn’t get people [to] control their gonads.”
Evolution triumphs over creationism! 😉
dyeing
lol
Pardon me, my Freudian slip was showing in re the protector of child molesters.
Lawrence,
One wouldn’t want the other criminals to think His Holiness was getting special treatment. While I personally would have no issue with the robes and the funny hats though? Probably right out as a security measure. Too good a place to hide contraband. Even dying the vestments to a uniform prison orange won’t change that risk.
Buddha,
Will the Pope be able to wear his robes into the shower room in the slammer?
Mespo:
It was well researched, she had at least 2 citations.
By the by – perhaps you should seek help for your Nepoleon complex …
tootie:
You really have no idea what you are talking about now do you?
Tootie:
Just a few examples I remember from catechism:
Surely you realize that customs at the time of Christ where that men married girls as soon as they got their first periods, some as young as 10 and 11, which was common and acceptable practice in both Judaism and Christianity …
Surely you remember that Lot offered his daughters to the angry mob, to do what they will, instead of offering the mob his guest …
Surely you remember after Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of sale, he couldn’t procreate by himself. He was, after all, left alone with his two daughters …
Surely you realize that God only created Adam and Eve, and, since they were the only humans on earth, that their offspring had to procreate with someone else …
mespo:
You misunderstand, naturally.
In the past (the time which you refer to) slavery was the rule, not the exception. The bible set up rules to battle it as it could not be stopped (like murder and theft could not be stopped).
You seem to confuse sexual slavery with “servant” slavery. The passages above is regarding slaves, not concubines.
This is NOT the same with Islam. In Islam women were traded merely for sex by Mohammed (he might marry them but he might not). This is considered sacred today. Mohammed gave sex slaves as gifts too. This is not the slavery of the bible. God’s plan for sexual activity is clearly set forth in the Garden of Eden and it excludes sex slaves.
God chose not to do destroy the human race on account of sexual sin and violence in the world. So when they become standard fair throughout the human race, he sent the flood, but also promised never to do it again. That limited his options. He even blasted entire cities like Sodom in order to wipe out sexual sin which undoubtedly ruined large swaths of humanity through disease.
That didn’t work either.
He couldn’t get people control their gonads. And so there were no other options left except to provide just rules about marriage and that included rules about keeping slaves including female ones. That might naturally lead to a desire for marriage and the above passages deal with some of that.
When the slate was wiped clean after the flood, the pattern for man and woman was again reset according to the Adam and Eve standard: Noah and his wife, his three sons and their three wives only. No sex slaves. No concubines.
Slavery in the old testament is not the same as the colonial European slavery most of us are familiar with. The ancient form of slaver was a form of handling indigents, orphans, and the disadvantaged (or vanquished) without sending them out in the wilderness to fend for themselves since there were no social safety nets. This was particularly dangerous for the young, the weak, and females.
And if a man was going to take in a stranger (or many of them) into his home with his family and care for their needs for the rest of their lives, there had to be a way to repay for getting them “off the streets”. Slavery was that way.
Civilization at that time was agrarian. Adding addition person to the household could mean hunger for everyone. It was serious business and it was just to require that those who could not survive on their own ought to be obligated to the master who took them in and likely spared their lives.
Slavery met the need of the “homeless”, not just in the Hebrew world, but in the world over. I understand that slavery is so old and so much tied up in the history of most all early civilizations, scholars cannot even discover when it began (unlike their discovery of the idea of liberty).
In most cases in the bible slaves could achieve their freedom if they wished, and even inherit the estate of the master if there were no offspring. Sex with a slave was not permitted, and if a lady became a spouse she was no longer a slave.
A slave who was escaped could not be returned to his master. No comprehensive rules like these existed before the Hebrews.
The rules in the Bible about slavery are only for the nation of Israel and no other people. And when the New Testament was codified, again, the pattern for man and woman was reset: one man married to one woman and no mistresses, whores, or concubines. This is plainly written in the bible.
Nearly fifty percent of the Roman world was under slavery around the time of Christ. And so the New Testament, again, like the Old, writes rules to mitigate it and make it fair for those Christians caught up in the systems of their day. The bible teaches that servants should be masters and masters should be servants. This idea abolishes slavery by default.
I’m amused at how hysterical liberals, progressives, and left-wingers get about the subject of slavery in the bible, when their most greatly desired goal in life is slavery to the state: Marxism, Obamaism, and all other forms of collectivism.
And, of course, the Bible NEVER teaches that sex with children is acceptable.
http://www.biblestudy.net/2004/03/07/bible-view-of-slavery/ (strong language warning: in comparison to Southern Slavery in the USA)
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20633201.html
The Pope has been traversing on a holier n’ higher than thou slippery-sloped tight rope of religiosity and I am waiting for him to surely and swiftly fall from grace into the safety net capture of the jail cell space waiting below.
Diplomatic immunity, my foot!
tootie:
“…the Koran (the same one that sanctifies sexual slavery and sanctifies an old dead guy who once had sex with a small child (which is also sanctified). Why does all that seem to make a perverse sense?.”
***************
I suppose it makes “perverse sense” to you because you first read about these beliefs in the Christian Bible, along with lots of other perversions and abominations:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Me thinks it’s time for the Ol’ Pope to step aside.
Hmmm … if my memory serves me correctly, the bible, in addition to the Koran, sanctions incest, slavery, pedophilia, blah, blah, blah. Funny how some people ridicule other religions while completely ignoring the history of one’s own …
Here in Belgium we’ve just had another bishop (73) confession… and the pope already accepted his resignation, go figure.
On a less positive note, further north, up in the Netherlands, there’s now a story on nuns having sexually abused some minors….
Isn’t Cardinal Law (who apparently protected pedophile priests here in the states) over at the Vatican avoiding a just review of his conduct by our courts? Is this very biblical? I sure it is not.
Law (his name mocks the word) resigned from his high position here in the states, then was rehired by Pope John Paul. Pope JP is the old dead guy who once kissed the Koran (the same one that sanctifies sexual slavery and sanctifies an old dead guy who once had sex with a small child (which is also sanctified). Why does all that seem to make a perverse sense?
I’m of the opinion that Teddy Kennedy or other powerful Catholics in Massachusetts allowed Law to escape from justice.
How could he have left the country without government turning its collective head from his flight?
This is the beginning of the end, maybe?
$$$$$
You know, Pope-a-Nope, I’m pretty sure that’s not how one spells “Jesus”.
I’d just like to say that it would be nice to see this pederast protecting Dope of a Pope having to buy some Soap on a Rope and stock up on Marlboro and Kool’s before hitting the slam.
But methinks simply a new Papal name will be adopted first: Pope Fugitive I.