 |
|
|
|
 Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, left, greets Pope Francis during a March meeting at the Vatican gardens.
September 24th, 2013
02:05 PM ET
Ex-pope breaks silence, denies cover upBy Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-editor [twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN'] (CNN) - Retired Pope Benedict XVI says he never tried to cover up the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests, breaking his post-retirement silence to address one of the greatest threats to his legacy as a church leader. In a lengthy letter published in La Repubblica, an Italian newspaper, the former pope answered theological and moral arguments from Piergiorgio Odifreddi, an Italian atheist and mathematician who had written about Benedict in 2011. Earlier this month, La Repubblica also published a letter to its atheist editor from Pope Francis, Benedict's successor. Since his retirement on February 28, Benedict has mostly stayed out of the public eye, living in a converted monastery behind St. Peter's Basilica and keeping his promise to steer clear - at least publicly - of church business. Benedict's new letter, coming on the heels of Francis' blockbuster interview published last week, makes for a remarkable week for papal communication. Most modern popes have been fairly inaccessible - to the media, at least. MORE ON CNN: Pope Francis: Church can't 'interfere' with gays In Benedict's letter, published Tuesday, the former pope said: "As far as you mentioning the moral abuse of minors by priests, I can only, as you know, acknowledge it with profound consternation. But I never tried to cover up these things." Benedict, who now has the title "pope emeritus," also said that even though sociologists have determined that the percentage of priests accused of abusing minors is not markedly higher than other professions, that's "not reassuring" for the church. Critics answer that it's the not just the crimes but the coverups that made the church's response to sexual abuse so scandalous. "Over a clerical career that lasted more than six decades, we can’t think of a single child-molesting bishop, priest, nun, brother or seminarian that Benedict ever exposed," said Barbara Dorris of the U.S.-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Before he was elected pope, Benedict, formerly known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which assumed responsibility for handling priest abuse cases late in his career. As pope, he issued revised guidelines in 2010 making it easier to remove abusive priests from the ministry, apologized for the "shame" the scandal brought on the church and met with victims, including in the United States in 2008. Critics like SNAP dismissed those moves as too little, too late. In the United States alone, nearly 17,000 people have come forward with abuse claims, and the church has paid $2.6 billion in settlements, therapy bills, lawyers' fees and expenses related to removing priests from the ministry, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. MORE ON CNN: Can Pope Francis make his vision a reality? In Tuesday's letter, and on past occasions, Benedict has decried the "filth" of sexual abuse in the church. But, the emeritus pope said, it is not "specific to Catholicism." He also chided Odifreddi for neglecting the good the church has done. "If you do not remain silent about evil in the Church, we must not, however, be silenced even by the great shining path of goodness and purity, which Christian faith has traced through the centuries," Benedict said. Pope Francis said in April, in one of his first statements as pope, that the church must take "decisive action" regarding cases of child sexual abuse and protecting children.
« Previous entryCan Pope Francis make his vision a reality?
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
By "neglecting the good", I assume he means The Inquisition.
Just how many people were killed in the Inquisition Bob? Over how many years?
There was no "Freedom of Information Act" so I doubt that there are reliable records open for scrutiny.
Oh yes...the old classic "Sure we've raped tens of thousands of children but have you seen what we're doing down at the soup kitchen?
Exactly.
Its not the Church Of Jesus Christ.
Its the Church Of Jerry Sandusky.
Now that the old pope is retired does the catholic church still supply him with young boys to molest or does he have to find his own?
Yuck yuck! That's a real knee slapper boy howdy
catholic – adj. 1. including a wide variety of things; all-embracing.
He keeps the ones that were issued to him during his time as pope. Once they reach the age of 12 new ones are brought in.
Sorry Benny you had your chance and you blew it!
I don't suppose these strange celibate men will acknowledge that they actually have sexuality. That's necessary before they can realize that they discourage people of normal sexuality from even considering the priesthood.
You discovered "normal"?
Well, no, Bill. Normal is what's happening outside of your Church.
normal is a setting on a dryer
I guess I don't want to discourage you from any lessons you might learn from home appliances.
When it comes to seexual activity, celibacy is probably more normal than not. Children are celibate, many old people as well as young are celibate, large numbers of religious, many ill or otherwise encuumbered. None of these people lose their seexual identiity and it is an insult for you to claim they do. When society skews towards the hyper seexual, as ours has done, then "normal" looks like what you think it does, everybody having lots of seex. But that just isn't the reality and it isn't the norm.
You are right, the common misconception is that 'celibacy' causes people to fall for temptation, which is unproven and incorrect.
Children are celibate, except perhaps those that were ra.ped over and over again by some priest or deacon.
Or uncle or coach or teacher or father or sister or, or or, Did you read the article? Catholics get the press but if it's such a problem in the Church, it's nearing critical mass in your living room.
Well, well BD another unchristian comment from you. You are the one that is supposed to be the forgiving, love thy neighbour type, yet you are so easily goaded into showing your true self
Horrible as it is for non-priests to do, abuse is a worse problem for priests, because they are supposed to represent a better way. A claimed better way, that is.
Sue, I don't think the standard of morality we place on offenders has any impact on the atrocities they commit. It just makes us feel self righteous when someone who maybe shouldn't have fallen actually does. We could apply the same standard to fathers, for instance, who are many times more likely to be abusers than priests. The devastation to the victim is no less because of the position of the offender, although I would say a parent should probably be held to an even higher standard than a priest. Unless you're suggesting leniency for them?
Bill
Way to misrepresent the entirety of human $exuality.
Children do not have the development nor the right hormone levels. As people get older those levels also drop, so the desire is lessened.
A normal healthy individual, in the "normal" years of $exual activity does NOT consider celibacy to be normal at all, $exual activity is normal and healthy. To not have $ex or to deny your basic instincts is NOT normal. To deny one of your most basic instincts is idiotic, and can cause a great deal of harm. There are links to $exual acitvity and prostate issues for example. Those who do not have $ex are more likely to develop problems later in life. That doesn't even begin to address the mental problems that can be on someone for guilt about their natural instincts and feelings, the guilt if they give in to their desires,the stigma of making someone think that their attraction to the same $ex isn't normal or an abomination.
Just a wonderful example of how religion can take something as normal as $ex, and make it dirty, immoral etc.etc..
Where did you get that I was calling it dirty or immoral?
Religion does Bill. There are all kinds of things that people tie to morality and $ex.
What is the first thing that happened in the Adam and Eve myth. They realized they needed to cover up. Why?...Human false modesty. Silliness.
Do any of the regular posters believe that BD may have been normal before succu.mbing to the brainwashing of the RCC?
Jury of my peers?
BD admitting even in jest that you may have peers is a good first step.
Bill is peerless in his ability to be a moron.
I peered into myself and saw okfine staring back at me
Did you also hear my voice in your head like that silent voice you think you heard when you skipped your meds?
Again the problem is in the history. Did this simple preacher man, Jesus, an illiterate rabbi at best, establish a church? No, based on the lack of historical proof e.g. "Thou art Peter" (Matt 16: 18-19) passage only appears in one gospel." Matthew, whomever he was, was therefore a part founder/"necessary accessory" of the Catholic Church, as was Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James his brother, Mary Magdelene, Mary, Joseph and another father if you believe the mamzer stories, the Apostles and Pilate. It was a team effort with Pilate being the strangest "necessary accessory".
Were economics an important influence? Yes indeed, and even more so nowl
I entered a post... Where is it? I guess you suck, just like the Cath Hole Ick Church.
• The moderators of this blog have set up a secret forbidden word filter which unfortunately not only will delete or put your comment in the dreaded "waiting for moderation" category but also will do the same to words having fragments of these words. For example, "t-it" is in the set but the filter will also pick up words like Hitt-ite, t-itle, beati-tude, practi-tioner and const-tution. Then there are words like "an-al" thereby flagging words like an-alysis and "c-um" flagging acc-umulate or doc-ument. And there is also "r-a-pe", “a-pe” and “gra-pe”, "s-ex", and "hom-ose-xual". You would think that the moderators would have corrected this by now considering the number of times this has been commented on but they have not. To be safe, I typically add hyphens in any word that said filter might judge "of-fensive".
• Make sure the web address does not have any forbidden word or fragment.
Sum Dude routinely updates the list of forbidden words/fragments.
Two of the most filtered words are those containing the fragments "t-it" and "c-um". To quickly check your comments for these fragments, click on "Edit" on the Tool Bar and then "Find" on the menu. Add a fragment (without hyphens) one at a time in the "Find" slot and the offending fragment will be highlighted in your comments before you hit the Post button. Hyphenate the fragment(s) and then hit Post. And remember more than one full web address will also gain a "Waiting for Moderation".
Zeb’s alphabetical listing
o “bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN "awaiting moderation" filter:
Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
--–
ar-se.....as in Car-se, etc.
ba-stard
co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, lubco-ck, etc.
co-on.....as in rac-oon, coc-oon, etc.
cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
cu-nt.....as in Scu-ntthorpe, a city in the UK famous for having problems with filters...!
do-uche
ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, etc.
fu-ck......!
ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, etc.
ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
ji-sm
koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
nip-ple
pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
sh-@t.....but shat is okay – don't use the @ symbol there.
sh-it
sl-ut
sn-atch
sp-ic.....as in disp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, ent-ities, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, etc.
va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
wt-f....also!!!!!!!
–
There are more, some of them considered "racist", so do not assume that this list is complete.
-–
Allowed words / not blocked at all:
anal
anus
ass
boob
crap
damn
execute
hell
kill
masturbation
murder
penis
pubic
raping (ra-pe is not ok)
shat (sh-@t is not ok)
sphincter
testes
testicles
–
The CNN / WordPress filter also filters your EMAIL address and NAME as well – so you might want to check those.
Thanks for the list. I've had comments go into "awaiting moderation" before, and the sad thing is that the moderation the post is awaiting often seems to be forthcoming somewhere in the distant future, if ever.
So to the belief blog, whoever is responsible: relying entirely on automatic filters, and then having filters which are ABSURDLY restrictive, and poorly done, and to top it off, leaving posts indefinitely into the limbo of "awaiting moderation", is lazy and incompetent.
arse.....as in Carse, etc.
bastard
cock.....as in cockatiel, cockatrice, cockleshell, cockles, lubcock, etc.
coon.....as in racoon, cocoon, etc.
cum......as in document, accumulate, circumnavigate, circumstances, cumbersome, cucumber, etc.
cunt.....as in Scuntthorpe, a city in the UK famous for having problems with filters...!
douche
effing...as in effing filter
ftw......as in software, delftware, swiftwater, etc.
fuck......!
homo.....as in homo sapiens or homosexual, homogenous, etc.
horny....as in thorny, etc.
jackass...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
jap......as in japanese, japan, jape, etc.
jism
kooch....as in koochie koo..!
nipple
pis......as in pistol, lapis, pissed, therapist, etc.
prick....as in prickling, prickles, etc.
rape.....as in scrape, trapeze, grape, therapeutic, sarape, etc.
sex......as in Essex, sexual, etc.
sh@t.....but shat is okay – don't use the @ symbol there.
shit
slut
snatch
spic.....as in dispicable, hospice, conspicuous, suspicious, spicule, spice, etc.
tit......as in constitution, attitude, entities, altitude, beatitude, etc.
twat.....as in wristwatch, nightwatchman, etc.
vag......as in extravagant, vagina, vagrant, vague, savage, etc.
whore....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
wtf....also!!!!!!!
All requiring extra steps for converting the words to different codes.
No words are "converted" to some code.
No, the secret is to pray to baby Jesus before hitting "Post" like this....Jeeeeeezus...I beseech you to let the word FUCK get past the moderators. Glory!
For added clarification:
From: myweightinwords-
"Chances are that your posts contained words that contained word fragments that the filter is set up to block....................................................................................................................................
For what it's worth, you can use html tags to get around it, as I did above, or simple place a "." or "-" in strategic locations to break the word fragment up."
The Catholic Church is just a Satanic Mafia organization that would rather protect it's reputation than care for it's members.
They use their diplomatic immunity sinfully. Not only should they loose their status as a soverign nation, they should invaded, just like Iraq and Afganistan. They have even less moral guidance than Islam.
Shame on the church of the Anti-Christ! They are NOT representatives of God. An Atheist has more of Christ in him than the Catholic Church/or the Baptist Church for that matter.
You are absolutely right. :o(((
5 pope articles in a row (OK, one ex-pope) after 4 Rick Warren articles. Hmm, wassup, CNN. Is that what produces ad views the best?
Maybe you should do an article on how the Pope and Rick Warren are betrothed to each other. That'll get you some views!
Ha. Funny. That explains why the pope suddenly is more open re gays and gay marriage. Yeah, I'm joking, but...it is funny to watch religious dogma change. So much for the "unchanging word of god".
What changed? Do I need a new catechism?
Actually BD you would be way more believable if you flushed the catechism and stuck with the do onto others shtick, of course that would be tough for such a pompous arrogant being such as you are.
yes. Or just drop it.
So no changes? Dang, I know you were looking forward to the new covenant too.
Secrets, secrets, are no fun.
Secrets, secrets, hurt someone.
Time for all the RCC haters to come out and condemn the Pope without any real evidence beyond, "Oh this one group said this and this one group said that".
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/14/world/europe/14church-report.html?_r=0
This article isn't about the pope.
Read Rev.18; "get out of her" "she has fallen" etc, prophecy being fulfilled.
Can I assume that the "prophecy" specifically mentions the Catholic Church ?
did you read it? is it not evident what part she plays?
So your answer is no ? There's a shock.
just sharing, hoping someone would read something for themselves. but I guess I hope too much in people. should stick to the creator and son, they never disappoint.
Self delusion rarely disappoints.
Stories like that do not clasify as prophecies due to the fact that people know about them and those who believe so strongly in them will do everything in their power to see them fulfilled.
james, the claim that anything such as your example is "prophecy" is BS, to put it simply.
Present a prophecy with actual exact dates in it, and then show how the prophecied events later happened on the predicted dates, and then you might have a starting point for a prophecy claim. Otherwise, I suggest you retract that.
PS enough stuff happens over time, that anyone can make a claim that "good stuff is gonna happen" or that some other good or bad event will happen, and eventually it likely will. That's not a valid prophecy. That's bullshit.
not a chance. that description of the harlot (along with ch.17) is being fulfilled in our lifetime and her committing fornication with the kings and merchants of the earth is such an obvious picture. I am so surprised since most of the geniuses posting here have been calling for the taxing of religion for so long that I would think you would see and be pleased.
I also can not believe this is new to you since I did not think it up. open some books (beside the Bible) there are many that believe this prophecy is almost complete.
and have believed that the prophecy applies to their current times since "John" originally wrote them.
"Nineteenth-century agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll branded Revelation "the insanest of all books".[30] Thomas Jefferson omitted it along with most of the Biblical canon, from the Jefferson Bible, and wrote that at one time, he "considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." [31]
Martin Luther once "found it an offensive piece of work" and John Calvin "had grave doubts about its value."[32]
Interesting that the rank and file of the clergy was sworn to "omerta". This guy probably has had all the docu.ments shredded or burned, it took awhile but know that all the evidence is destroyed declare there was no cover up. BTW the clergy in Australia admitted that they destroyed docu.ments, I am sure that was not an isolated case.
Well, there's a lying sack of shltake mushrooms.
Well, I like shiitake mushrooms after they have been properly cleansed of the shit...but I don't like what these bozos are peddling.
So he is going to open the church files and cooperate fully with all investigations?
There will never be full disclosure. The apologists will never understand that this is the issue.
You know what's cool about this photo? Two Popes meeting and shaking hands is something that hasn't happened for almost 600 years, and we are alive to see it.
And that's supposed to be special to everyone? Two lying a holes that are in charge of a whole lot of delusional idiots, big whoop!
Funny. These lying a holes are more important to the world than your hateful self.
That's hardly true. Especially since you know very little to nothing about me.
Of course it's not special. delusional idiots like Badger converge on here all the time.
And just what have I ever written that made you come to the conclusion that I was either an idiot, delusional or both?
Know that something is true and can't reply reasonably? attack, call names and hope that people are too mad to not remember the original issue.. one trick thats been working for xtians for the last 2000 yrs..
I see two ordinary men shaking hands all the time. "I have as much authority as the pope, I just dont have as many people that believe it"
He probably would have been better off keeping quiet.
"even though sociologists have determined that the percentage of priests accused of abusing minors is not markedly higher than other professions, that's "not reassuring" for the church." Then why bring it up?
So...surely the Catholic church doesn't think the rest of the world is so stupid, as to ignore the fact that the switch in Popes was for political reasons...the Catholic church was plummeting out of control on the world stage with Benedict, the Nazi-youth, at the helm.
Wow chicken little, has any more sky fall on you today?
Is the truth a bit too uncomfortable for you?
How do you know when a pope is lying? His lips are moving.
A-men
Child molesting priests will rot in h-e-l-l.
As Jesus said regarding those who hurt children in Luke 17:2,
"It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.
The church should have cameras to protect their own priests from allegations.
How do they prove these allegations? In the absence of evidence it is 'he said' vs. 'he said'.
Money can be a great motivation for evil people.
Not to say there might not have been true victims, but how do you know whether an alleged victim is lying or not?
And the church made sure it would stay that way by requiring all the "investigators" to take oaths that they would never tell what they found.
Were you an 'investigator' under oath?
Interesting that you want to protect the priest, not the child.
Why would you be against having cameras?
Why would you conclude that from my comment?