The Pope.

The causa sine qua non of any conflict would be the arrest of the Pope. that is being called for by two Humanists. If they were genuinely interested in punishment for wrongdoing, why have they not targetted other persons? Because they are only interested in targetting organised religions. The conflict would not be about protecting the Pope per se, but would be a deeply divisive act and there would be a perception of persecution on one side, and for other , triumphalism. It doesnt need to be sparked bu Catholics. I defy you to say that this wouldnt bring Huns out on the streets waving their banners and spouting their bile. Do you think every catholic will just stay at home then?

The Rule of Law comes first. Only in a theocracy are they combined. But the Rule of Law is not absolutist. If application of the Rule of Law would, say, create civil unrest, then it can be disapplied without threat to society. Thats fairly trite jurisprudential theory. It also plays into the hands of Hitchens, as I have said. I highlighted that this argument has strngths and weaknesses. the Rule of Law is a weakness. But in realpolitic terms, unless you want to be rid of the institution, the best solution can be to get it sorted from within. Its up to catholics to have the guts to do that.

I can tell you that is more likely if there is no perceived threat from the outside.

Hope that explains my thinking, crude though it may be.:icon_mrgreen:

 

Jings Marco, have a word with yourself. Ive tried to keep this cool.

Using the word "potential" is like saying "alleged", it may not get you sued, but the meaning is clear. I did not quite you fully because the word "potential" is redundant in terms of the rest of the phrase you used. Its semantical.

I have already said I am biased, but I dont think you can use my not quoting you correctly as proof that I am "unable to see the man"...... with respect thats playground logic - no offence intended.

I have no interest in generating heat instaed of light, so I will leave your coals burning on this thread.

Cheers

 

PRD, if we are going to try people by Wikipedia - which I dont think is a terribly good idea, how about this:-

Prior to 2001, the primary responsibility for investigating allegations of sexual abuse and disciplining perpetrators rested with the individual dioceses. In 2001, Ratzinger convinced John Paul II to put the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in charge of all investigations and policies surrounding sexual abuse.[112][113] In his role as Head of the CFD, he "led important changes made in church law: the inclusion in canon law of internet offences against children, the extension of child abuse offences to include the sexual abuse of all under 18, the case by case waiving of the statue of limitation and the establishment of a fast-track dismissal from the clerical state for offenders. He is not an idle observer. His actions speak as well as his words."[114] As the Head of the CDF, Ratzinger developed a reputation for handling these cases. According to Charles J. Scicluna, a former prosecutor handling sexual abuse cases, "Cardinal Ratzinger displayed great wisdom and firmness in handling those cases, also demonstrating great courage in facing some of the most difficult and thorny cases, sine acceptione personarum (without exceptions)".[115][116]
One of the cases Ratzinger pursued involved Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, a Mexican priest and founder of the Legion of Christ, who had been accused repeatedly of sexual abuse. Biographer Andrea Tornielli suggested that Cardinal Ratzinger had wanted to take action against Marcial Maciel Degollado, but that John Paul II and other ranking officials prevented him from doing so.[113][117] According to Berry, Angelo Sodano "pressured" Cardinal Ratzinger, who was "operating on the assumption that the charges were not justified", to halt the proceedings against Maciel in 1999[118][119] When Maciel was honored by the Pope in 2004, new accusers came forward[118] and Cardinal Ratzinger "took it on himself to authorize an investigation of Maciel"[113] After Ratzinger became pope he began proceedings against Maciel and the Legion of Christ that forced Maciel out of active service in the church.[112] On May 1, 2010 the Vatican issued a statement denouncing Maciel's "very serious and objectively immoral acts", which were "confirmed by incontrovertible testimonies" and represent "true crimes and manifest a life without scruples or authentic religious sentiment." Pope Benedict also said he would appoint a special commission to examine the Legionaries’ constitution and open an investigation into its lay affiliate Regnum Christi.[120]

​

Doesnt sound like someone who loves a cover up to me.

 

Guys, I have enjoyed this, but am feeling a little persecuted myself, and have to get on with some work.

Cheers, see you when we get a manager!

 

the problem i have with the pope and catholic church is the fact they seem * bent on protecting these scummy dirty beasts that co-exist to harm children when the pope should be interveining and * these evil * out the church and get the authorities involved to put the * away! if was up to me! i would hang every last mother * tbh. scum of the earth harm kids you should be named ,shamed ,tried then * hung . no ifs,buts,or maybe`s about that.

and on the case of moderenising? you have to remember that the catholic faith is centuries old! and therefore it would take a * of a long time and discussing amoung all at the vatican to decide in majority wether to change it for more up to date stuff. so dont hold your breath there then.

 

Every true Catholic would stay at home, or at least abstain from any form of violence.
That aside, I understand your point about triumphalism with regards to the prospect of the arrest of the Pope. But his arrest shouldn't be a divisive act - his involvement is at the very least enough to warrant questioning by the authorities.
Frankly, this shouldn't be about his religion. It should be about the man, and the wrong-doings that he committed. It's only divisive because Catholics object to having the authority or judgement of the head of their church questioned.
Of course there will be crowing from huns and others but so what. I think it would be a great stride for secular society in actually punishing Ratzinger for his alleged crimes. I'd advocate this just as strongly for any other religious figurehead.

I hope you appreciate the irony of a religious person discussing realpolitik

Other than that I see what you mean here.