Barney wrote:
Now Cardinal McCarrick - the former head of Washington's catholic church - has been told to cease all his duties.

The Pope took the decision after new facts came to light regarding McCarrick's alleged sexual activities with minors in the past.


A new whistleblower - Archbishop Vigano - tells us, in a 12 page document, that Cardinal McCarrick' sexual abuse was known to Pope Francis for years.

McCarrick is the first Cardinal to stand down, in almost a hundred years. Vigano's statement at the weekend - includes a call for Francis to resign.

Other investigations are happening in the RCC - and Francis must be wishing he'd stayed in Buenos Aires. Instead of defending the indefensible.

Jo wrote:
I'm no fan of the Catholic Church and can well believe it had/has abusers among its ranks but I can't help but wonder how many of these adults who never thought to go to police before and are now popping up late in the day are genuine, as opposed to bogus and opportunistic and hoping to get a payout from a famously wealthy organisation.

I'm no fan of the Catholic Church what a bizarre way to start a comment. Are you a "fan" of any religion? Do tell..and why is it relevant to your opinion? Its a bit like saying "i'm no fan of those gays, but..."

I'm with Jo on this one Angel; I'm no fan of many things and organised religion, which has some good and great aspects, also has bad ones - but I feel all this Cath bashing is pointless and stupid just as Football Club bashing and BBC bashing and all the other futile and destructive witch hunts. Our mutual fan winner Salmond is suffering at this very moment!

'Cath bashing' didn't occur for decades - simply because many of us accepted the Vatican's assertions that abuse never happened.

When the RCC refused to cooperate, and to share their records - the denials were accepted by most.



Two things have changed:-


1. Indigenous jurisdictions got involved - in Australia, USA, Ireland etc., which proved, in numerous courts, that systemic abuse had occurred.


2. The RCC accepted its failures and the cruelty of its priests and nuns - in thousands of countries and locations.



JK - to suggest that the RCC is being bashed - bearing in mind the convictions and graphic admissions is somewhat foolish...

www.christiantoday.com/article/defenders...legations/130308.htm

So how are we to know who is and isn't an abuser when the whole thing is being used as a political football? The allegations about the Pope are an attempt by the fascist wing of the Catholic church to take us back to the days when gays and bisexuals were treated like murderers. People like these castigate anyone who does not believe each and every allegation without proof but how can we when their agenda is so clear? I have always said that the abuse/MeToo campaign was much more from the right than the left. Look at its targets: Asian men, the BBC, Hollywood, now they're blaming gay people for abuse in the Catholic church. Of course some of the allegations are true and these people need to be punished but how much of it is motivated than something other than a desire to protect the innocent? This is part of an agenda to take us back to the old 1950s days of patriarchy and repression.

Barney wrote:
'Cath bashing' didn't occur for decades - simply because many of us accepted the Vatican's assertions that abuse never happened.

When the RCC refused to cooperate, and to share their records - the denials were accepted by most.



Two things have changed:-


1. Indigenous jurisdictions got involved - in Australia, USA, Ireland etc., which proved, in numerous courts, that systemic abuse had occurred.


2. The RCC accepted its failures and the cruelty of its priests and nuns - in thousands of countries and locations.



JK - to suggest that the RCC is being bashed - bearing in mind the convictions and graphic admissions is somewhat foolish...

JK and Jo are perfectly correct on this and Barney you appear constantly to have lost any sight of reality, reason, fact seeking and you seem in your posts, at least, to represent general human bigotry. Thus once again as I explained the real problem and solutions are not dealt with the same as the health service, housing, low income, lack of jobs, immigration... the list is endless.
Point 1 Indigenous jurisdictions is proving so counter productive in most countries and at most times often takes many prominent people been falsely accused to even start the decision makers and general public to get a small inkling of the real reality or in the case of the underclass/ no class/dispossessed - riots when the poor are trodden down before a small amount of positive action is taken. Even a world war or two.

Indigenous jurisdictions proved that like most people the ability to be stupid and follow emotion and hear stories that have no evidence is the
de rigueur. Very destructive for the human race. One UK judge to even get it right second time around going from a report on Greville Janner when it was the believe the story to a report on Operation Yewtree where the scale of utter stupidity fortunately was enough in that case, to what so far has been revealed, was a "oh no" moment for the judge "the police have really gone down the plug hole and lost their marbles". Put in different words of course. So "NO" all these enquiries only serve to prove how stupid we as the human race have a tendency to be. And they show very little to possibly nothing else. It does help spread some wealth around to lawyers, fraudsters and so on so spending is good for the economy.

Point 2 Acknowledging problems ideally should be a positive thing and maybe something positive will continue to happen. But it is also borders on the George Entwistle syndrome (former top person of the BBC) who did not watch the first MWT expose documentary that showed clearly to any person willing to engage their brain and see the story teller provided absolutely no support for their stories, "no evidence". It was all like a John Le Carrie spy story with smoke and mirrors and no real true story only the concocted reality that becomes real for the players. The documentary on Jimmy Savile was a lot less convincing unfortunately than the spy story "set ups" which is very sad reflection on the thinking ability of the general population I am sorry to say and who most will probably hate me for saying so. But that is the evidence. Or George Entwistle may of looked but as is all too common the top person's ability to grasp the real significance is beyond their immediate ability. One of those mysteries of life is how did that person ever get that position...? If he was only mildly good at his job he would of seen that the accusations had no foundation and Peter Rippon and his two senior people were correct not to pursue it and if the later report had still been done he would of seen even after much time the report still found not one shred of evidence to support broadcasting the original BBC expose re Jimmy Savile and that the rules of the BBC at the time had in fact been followed. But like the Pope may be doing is trying to appease the public and belief rather than standing up for real reason and evidence and giving a more reasoned and balanced view. Nothing wrong with the Pope apologising of course but his accepting everything wholesale is a tendency towards George Entwistle syndrome which is counter productive. So Barney you are mistaken yet your reaction is all too common sadly.

Anonymous wrote:
www.christiantoday.com/article/defenders...legations/130308.htm

So how are we to know who is and isn't an abuser when the whole thing is being used as a political football? The allegations about the Pope are an attempt by the fascist wing of the Catholic church to take us back to the days when gays and bisexuals were treated like murderers. People like these castigate anyone who does not believe each and every allegation without proof but how can we when their agenda is so clear? I have always said that the abuse/MeToo campaign was much more from the right than the left. Look at its targets: Asian men, the BBC, Hollywood, now they're blaming gay people for abuse in the Catholic church. Of course some of the allegations are true and these people need to be punished but how much of it is motivated than something other than a desire to protect the innocent? This is part of an agenda to take us back to the old 1950s days of patriarchy and repression.

Great minds think alike.

Indeed there is an extremely vicious nasty right-wing cabal within the Vatican who seem determined to take down the current Pope.

And that includes his longtime friend the very Conservative Cardinal George Pell who was chosen by the Pope as he regards him as an honest man who would reform Vatican finances (ie kick out the Mafia controlled mob who have been using the Church)

Recent claims re the Pope "knowing" of recent claims re a US Cardinal have not been supported by a single piece of evidence- just a claim.

Reports of the recent death of the Catholic Church are greatly exaggerated with still over 1.4 billion adherents- indeed the great Silent Majority.

It's all in the detail as I explained on here once: while the percentage of Catholics has decreased over the years everywhere and in Australia (inevitable as a society grows and is more diversified) the number of Catholic Church followers has increased.

Pell - chosen by Pope Francis!

No, and not even by his predecessor.


By John Paul II.


And a cardinal for a decade before Francis even arrived in Rome.

Hero worship can affect the memory...