Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

[noth]

here is part of a letter published in the Independent newspaper

Popes have had no problem voicing their opinions when we wanted contraception or divorce. No problem criticising The Da Vinci Code. No problem criticising Naomi Campbell for wearing a bejewelled cross. Yet when it comes to the evils done by paedophiles dressed as priests they are silent. It is grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented. They stand for nothing now but evil.

They have brought Catholicism and the idea of God into disrepute. We need to take back the church which is ours, not theirs. They are not fit to call themselves representatives of Christ. They never believed that God was watching, and they still act as though they don't think God is watching. But every one of them will have to meet their maker in the end, even the Pope himself. And if I were them I would be very afraid.

Sinead O'Connor

Bray, Co Wicklow

the letter was published in Dec 2009 and can be seen here read it and weep

[leest]

Surely just because the pope is the head of a state, it doesn't mean he can't be prosecuted, surely if he does something wrong then he has to answer for his actions.?

[Popp Singh]

Diplomatic imunity .

And courts ...... OMG ...... just look at the international farce court in holland makeing cases against small time nobodys useing absolutely idiotic "evidence" and ignoreing blair , burlesconi , aznor , bush , obama , cheyney , rumsfeld or any of the israeli leaders = the hitlers of our day . Acording to our laws every person who is acused of anything should have a fair trial and if found guilty punished but as one sees if one looks that is definately not so .

If you want to know about "justice" just go and spend some time in courts and watch what happens . It is nothing like on TV . Its more like the inquisition .

Money buys verdicts . For instance in germany and the UK one can defend oneself in the first instance but in the second one has to have a soliciter . = pay big $$$$ or dont bother apealing . The higher one goes with apeals the more it costs = poor people get sent down and rich walk guilty or not . Then there is the soliciter trap . There are good soliciters and they take BIG $$$$ , mediocer soliciters that take not as much but to much for poor people to pay = you might think you can get legal aid but they wont do it for that price and one has to give them a back hander , then there are the realy realy CRUD soliciters that tell you to go into court plead guilty , say you had a bad childhood and that you are sorry . When people have very good soliciters the judge sees them comeing into court and they know that they cant play games and the solicitor hardly has to say anything or argue against the prosecuter and their clients get off realy light and the case only takes a few minutes / hours .

This isnt always true but when charged with the same offences women get of lighter than men , white better than non white , rich lighter than poor , well educated better than less well educated and good looking better than not so good looking .

So there is no chance that the leader of the bigest criminal organisation that the planet has ever seen will be punished .

I can understand if some people dont understand what i have just written but before anyone starts shhoting live rounds at me just ask and i will try to explain what i have said and why .

[SamG]

Justice and fairness start at the level of individuals and what we say, do, and don't do. Venting isn't always the most just way to express ourselves.

This is a topic about the criminal and moral liability of the Pope. It isn't about Blair, Bush, etc. It isn't about the state of justice in the world in general.

We give the subject the thoughtfulness it deserves, on topic, and we're good to go. This isn't a soapbox topic nor an open season on every perceived injustice in the world.

Thanks.

[Popp Singh]

Its about the pope who has been acused of majour crimes . He is a head of state a politician . The people i mentioned are heads of state or big politicians . They are examples of what hapens to people in the same position as the pope who are acused of major crimes and therefore relevant .

The thread is about justice and courts and the chances of all the victims around the world getting justice so was my post . Therefore my post was relevant .

Have you ever been sexualy assulted ? . I have and so has my daughter , so have 10s of thousands of children around the world . therefore its a global problem and discussion . Therefore my post was relevant .

I think you should think about your reply ...... and why you made it and the way you made it and the reasoning ......... and think about how all those people , my daughter and me feel about what has happened and what will ( not ) happen about it ........ and dont belittle our pain or our atempts to get justice with silly soap box or other under the belt comments .

I could reply with "i am allright jack " or blind ignorance or out of the mouths of babes in arms or rose coloured glasses or cheep tricks comments but that level is under my dignity . Please respect the dignity of the victims .

I think it would be better for everyone involved if you have anything to say on the subject or anything on the subject against what i have said that you stick to the subject and offer arguments and not rreact how you have wich could be interpreted as useing the fact that you are a moderator to gain an unfair advantage or put someone down .

Thank you .

[SamG]

And I think you should not read into my post something I did not say. Because I'm a moderator it's part of my job to moderate the discussion--as in keeping it from wandering off topic or into inflamatory harshness that does not move the discussion forward.

Hitler, the Inquisition, Richard Cheney, etc., are on the fringes of a discussion about the real pain of sexual abuse and the injustice of people escaping the penalty of abusing someone. Closer to the topic is the ability of large, organized religion to escape the consequences of the problem of sexual abuse by those who hold authority within the organization.

So I stand by my comment. We stay just and fair, we stay thoughtful, and we stay on topic, or the topic becomes at risk.

Thanks.

[SamG]

On looking at what I wrote I should really apologize for tossing in the definition of the noun moderate by way of explaining my view of a moderator's responsibilities. While I think the idea is to have moderate, sensible discussion, and while I think that a moderator is responsible to help that to happen, I really shouldn't have put it the way I did. This is too sensitive a conversation for me to be injecting confusion into it by being sloppy. So I apologize especially to people who don't have English as a first language for being sloppy with definitions. Those who speak English natively may have understood the intent of my linguistic "shortcut," but I apologize to them as well.

Carry on.

[Popp Singh]

You didnt apologise to me for useing the words "venting" , "soap box" and "inflamatory harshness" wich were directly or indirectly aimed at me and are personal insults and have nothing to do with the thread . . BUT i`ll take your apology as also being an apology to me .

Please delete the last 4 posts and this one so that the thread can get back on topic .

BUT ...... sorry ......before hand i feel i have to say this ---->

I`ve been in virtualy the same position with marshalrusty twice , ToonArmy and you . I could have ripped what each of you said apart virtualy word for word but i didnt . If this ever happens again i will do it and you and they and even all of you together havent got a snow ball in hells chance against me in a fair debate .

[Rhet-or-Ric]

.

No disrespect meant to anyone doing the difficult job of moderating a religious type of topic, but this topic went way off-topic right in page one and continued off-topic into page two and then SamG posted on page three and it was not a post asking everyone to stay on-topic, which at that point implied that a fair bit of leeway would be given to the posters in this topic.

To try to slam that "leeway door" shut this far along isn't a good moderation technique. And, yes, I meant to use the word "slam". When a moderator doesn't use "please" and attempt to show some expression of understanding of extenuating circumstances that may influence a member of this community as he/she responds to other posters (and there are a lot of extenuating circumstances in this thread) it starts to look like a door slamming type of moderation.

Again, no disrespect meant -- just my professional opinion and you know what is said about opinions.

As for the OP and the bringing of any individual before a panel of judges for criminal proceedings, isn't there supposed to be a specific charge, or list of charges? In page two somebody wrote that there was some willingness on the part of some entity in the UK to bring the Pope before a court of some kind, pending results of an investigation.

What I am driving at here is who is investigating the Pope? How far along is the investigation? Most importantly, what exactly is the criminal charge, or charges, for which you'd like to bring this individual before a panel of judges?

The charges have to be specific or the discussion just appears to be a venting of one's own frustrations about a system they don't like and have no control over. Whether you believe in what this Pope fella's job is makes no difference whether he should be brought up on criminal charges.

Again, just my opinion, although I wouldn't call that a professional opinion.

.

[Marshalrusty]

I`ve been in virtualy the same position with marshalrusty twice , ToonArmy and you . I could have ripped what each of you said apart virtualy word for word but i didnt . If this ever happens again i will do it and you and they and even all of you together havent got a snow ball in hells chance against me in a fair debate .

Would you mind defining "fair debate" for us "snow balls"? I'd like to know the rules before I freeze your hell over.

[SamG]

To try to slam that "leeway door" shut this far along isn't a good moderation technique. And, yes, I meant to use the word "slam". When a moderator doesn't use "please" and attempt to show some expression of understanding of extenuating circumstances that may influence a member of this community as he/she responds to other posters (and there are a lot of extenuating circumstances in this thread) it starts to look like a door slamming type of moderation.

Fair points. Of course, extenuating circumstances could include a moderator's experience within the community. Moderators are supposed to attempt to give everybody a fair chance on the topic at hand. They are also supposed to protect the general sensibilities of a diverse community. In a delicate topic like this, where does the line go? In the case of moderators who are merely volunteers within the community and do what they do only as they have time, how do you protect continuity?

Nevertheless, it's not my intent to slam the door on discussion of the Pope's liability or the Catholic Church's liability over the horrendous act of sexual abuse. But phpBB.com's General Discussion forum is not outside the general purpose of phpBB.com and so has some stricter expectations of community participation than perhaps any of us prefer.

... personal insults ...

To be frank, your history of questioning both the intelligence and the motives of people here simply because they are moderators is not less insulting. I have no interest in trading insults, and I have no interest in abusing power. But I do have a job to do, and I learned long ago that I cannot meet everyone's expectations.

I apologize for the fact that you have felt insulted, for I have no interest in insulting you. And I am willing to apologize when I botch the moderator's call. Rhet-or-Ric's point that a "please" was appropriate is a good one.

So I will ask that everyone please stay on topic. It is absolutely necessary in the case of a sensitive topic like this that we stay fair and just (no one is guilty until proven to be guilty, for example, whether by trial or by the judgment of history) and yet stay sensitive to the pain of victims of sexual abuse. Staying strictly on-topic is, in my view, the best way to accomplish that end. However the topic has progressed to this point, please proceed going forward by staying on topic. There are issues worth discussing here that can be discussed profitably even under that restraint. I speak from experience.

Thanks.

Edit: I must add that anyone is free to take my moderating (or lack of it) up with the Moderator Team Leader, primedomain. So that things stay as fair as possible, I encourage it.

Edit 2:

I could have ripped what each of you said apart virtualy word for word but i didnt . If this ever happens again i will do it and you and they and even all of you together havent got a snow ball in hells chance against me in a fair debate .

I apologize for the edits, but I need to address this with one more comment. You seem to assume that I am taking issue with the factuality or accuracy of some of your comments. To be clear, I am asking you to be fair and on-topic in the context of this discussion. For all you know you would try to debate me and find that we agree on certain things. But you don't seem to think that even a possibility.

It would be fine to intelligently discuss the political and religious abuses of power of a Spanish king and queen (on the assumption that a reference to the judicial horrors of the Inquisition is likely a reference to the Spanish Inquisition), a German premier, and a whole host of American politicians. And you and I might agree on many things in the course of that discussion. What does any of that have to do with how I moderate this topic? It is nowhere near as personal as you seem to take it.

[SamG]

Partly by way of following my own request to be on topic, and partly because I have been following this in the news for some time, I am finding the BBC coverage of this helpful. For example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front ... 985835.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11281071

[MichaelC]

Partly by way of following my own request to be on topic, and partly because I have been following this in the news for some time, I am finding the BBC coverage of this helpful. For example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front ... 985835.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11281071

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11280797
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11267301

Just some other news articles that were on the BBC News site I found.

[Rhet-or-Ric]

.

Thank you to the two folks that provided those links.

After reading the four articles it seems the Panorama article goes into the most detail and it seems this part of the article gets as close as possible to the issue of culpability on the part of the Pope.

The question for the current Pope is whether he was told the exact nature of Father Hullermann's offences at a crucial meeting in January 1980.

If he was, then responsibility for informing the police lay with him.

But the minutes of the meeting do not disclose what was said in any discussion of Hullermann, simply recording that the request was granted.

The head of personnel in Munich, a close friend of the then-Archbishop Ratzinger, was told that Hullermann was withdrawn from pastoral work because he was "a danger" and could present legal difficulties.

The Pope has not said whether he was given any specific information at this meeting about Father Hullermann's abuse of children.

But there is no smoking gun there. It's going to take a lot more than that to get any prosecutor to open a file on this.

Anybody got anything else?

.

[noth]

THE POPE IS A PEADOPHILE PROTECTOR AND SHOULD BE HUNTED DOWN LIKE THE COMMON CRIMINAL HE IS
he would, given the choice, prefer his peadophile priests continue raping children than actually be brought to justice by police
he is a grand obstructor of justice and thoroughly evil