The Roman Empire didn't approve of human sacrifices
I didn't say they did. The post I replied to mentioned the Romans and also mentioned Pagans who back in the day did approve of human sacrifices. So, the lions were a reference to the Romans, the sacrifices a reference to the Pagans.
He should, as a minimum, be subpoenad to appear at any current ongoing RC child abuse case/investigation.
He was, before being appointed by God as Pope, responsible for disciplinary matters throughout the Catholic Church.
I am getting rather tired of his 'not me guv' demeanour in playing the feeble old man.
The Roman Empire didn't approve of human sacrifices
It's ironic, because while a lot of the New Testament, and in particular 'Revelations', has been interpreted as a semi-political rant against the Roman Empire, the Romans chose to adopt Christianity as the religion to unify their empire (which at the time was a minor Jewish sect, and they had a plethora of these cults, all with their own messiahs to choose from. It's almost pot luck that Christianity was chosen as the tool of choice, but after it was chosen, it was enforced by the sword). That is of course, why all of our indigenous religions no longer exist.
He should, as a minimum, be subpoenad to appear at any current ongoing RC child abuse case/investigation.
He was, before being appointed by God as Pope, responsible for disciplinary matters throughout the Catholic Church.
I am getting rather tired of his 'not me guv' demeanour in playing the feeble old man.
Maybe none of these allegations actually reached The Pope.They could have been hushed up before they even reached him.
I expect to see him arrested the day after all the hospital workers and managers, BBC staff and prison staff who colluded to allow Saville and others to operate freely across 50 years on their premises, and the day after the heads of all the schools that have moved child molesters on rather than reporting them, the governing bodies of all those sports who ignored reports of child molestation within them, and the day after the leaders of all the political parties that have allowed MPs to molest women repeatedly. Then it will be the heads of all the UN organisations whose officers have been repeatedly involved with child abuse. etc, etc, etc.
The fact is, until very recently most big organisations when faced with abuse didn't know how to react and generally swept the whole thing under the carpet as being too painful/difficult to tackle. Incidentally most families have done exactly the same thing when confronted with abusing relatives .... and lets not forget our own police and social services in Oldham and heaven knows how many other places.
It's ironic, because while a lot of the New Testament, and in particular 'Revelations', has been interpreted as a semi-political rant against the Roman Empire, the Romans chose to adopt Christianity as the religion to unify their empire (which at the time was a minor Jewish sect, and they had a plethora of these cults, all with their own messiahs to choose from. It's almost pot luck that Christianity was chosen as the tool of choice, but after it was chosen, it was enforced by the sword). That is of course, why all of our indigenous religions no longer exist.
By the time the Romans officially adopted Christianity it had grown far beyond being a minor Jewish sect. It took the best part of four centuries for that to happen.
Agree with the rest of your post though. We could just as easily have been posting here speculating on whether the High Priest of Apollo would be arrested upon leaving Corinth.
On the subject of Apollo BTW, if we're talking about Roman persecution what they did to Apollo's followers at Delphi really puts the so-called persecution of Christians in perspective.
It's ironic, because while a lot of the New Testament, and in particular 'Revelations', has been interpreted as a semi-political rant against the Roman Empire, the Romans chose to adopt Christianity as the religion to unify their empire (which at the time was a minor Jewish sect, and they had a plethora of these cults, all with their own messiahs to choose from. It's almost pot luck that Christianity was chosen as the tool of choice, but after it was chosen, it was enforced by the sword). That is of course, why all of our indigenous religions no longer exist.
The greatest Roman attack on the native British religion came before the empire became Christian, and there is no evidence that the empire forced Christianity onto the British by the sword. Archeaological evidence, although minimal, indicates that both paganism and Christianity co-existed by the time that the Romans left.
As a Christian, I believe the Pope should be arrested if it is the will of God.
There is a clear and obvious precedent for Christians being arrested and persecuted, going back to the Apostles, who were arrested and martyred, including Peter (the alleged “first Pope” according to Catholocism). Plus, of course, Paul, the author of most of the New Testament, was both an evil murderer and a criminal, arrested on several occasions.
So for a true disciple of the Lord Jesus, being arrested should be nothing to fear, since the Lord is sovereign and if we are sent to jail or even killed, it is for God’s greater purpose and can bring us into a closer relationship with the Lord.
One might argue that a man who has committed crimes, been shamed, arrested, and gone to jail, would be a perfect Pope and leader of the church, as he will no doubt be much more aware of his sin, just like the many great biblical figures who did terrible things and repented.
Putting aside my core objections to Catholocism, I find it hard to imagine someone who has lived an extremely easy and luxurious life being a suitable figurehead for a faith which is based on calling out to God in need in our trials, suffering and brokenness.
Romans 5:3–5: “We also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.”
As a Christian, I believe the Pope should be arrested if it is the will of God.
There is a clear and obvious precedent for Christians being arrested and persecuted, going back to the Apostles, who were arrested and martyred, including Peter (the alleged “first Pope” according to Catholocism). Plus, of course, Paul, the author of most of the New Testament, was both an evil murderer and a criminal, arrested on several occasions.
So for a true disciple of the Lord Jesus, being arrested should be nothing to fear, since the Lord is sovereign and if we are sent to jail or even killed, it is for God’s greater purpose and can bring us into a closer relationship with the Lord.
One might argue that a man who has committed crimes, been shamed, arrested, and gone to jail, would be a perfect Pope and leader of the church, as he will no doubt be much more aware of his sin, just like the many great biblical figures who did terrible things and repented.
Putting aside my core objections to Catholocism, I find it hard to imagine someone who has lived an extremely easy and luxurious life being a suitable figurehead for a faith which is based on calling out to God in need in our trials, suffering and brokenness.
Except of course in this case that there appears to be evidence that Ratzinger knew about and covered up ongoing and institutionalised child abuse by Catholic priests.
Something tells me that this is somewhat at odds with the message in the Gospels.
Are you quite certain that Pope-Emeritus doesn't hold exactly the same level of diplomatic immunity?
Presumably if a citizen of the Vatican state is within the boundaries of Vatican City itself or one of the numerous extraterritorial properties (e.g. the Palace of Castel Gandolfo summer residence) then immunity would apply. Furthermore, there would have to be actual evidence to indicate that someone was actively involved in the commissioning and undertaking of a crime and that has yet to be demonstrated.
Except of course in this case that there appears to be evidence that Ratzinger knew about and covered up ongoing and institutionalised child abuse by Catholic priests.
Something tells me that this is somewhat at odds with the message in the Gospels.
Well first of all, the central message in the Gospels is one of forgiveness. That God can forgive us through Jesus, but we too must also forgive others. Therefore no one in the church is to be self-righteous, looking down on criminals with scorn and contempt, since he himself is a sinner. All members of the church are to consider themselves equal: equally sinners and equally saved by God’s grace. So however the Pope deals with internal criminals, it should first and foremost be done in a spirit of love and forgiveness, not condemnation, spite or retribution.
Now I have no idea what has actually gone on in the Vatican, but there is a huge difference between:
1. Encouraging crime, covering it up, denying it, or turning a blind eye to it.
and 2. Dealing with serious allegations internally in a serious and responsible way
When I hear of Vatican “cover up” stories, I assume (and hope) it is actually (2) above, misreported or misunderstood. Deception and lying is not Godly, and it certainly is sinful to deliberately cover crimes up. However, merely not reporting crimes is not deceptive and not sinful.
Any “righteous act” based on a lie or deception is a sin, because dishonesty is not of the Lord’s nature. If I found myself lying about something or actively trying to cover it up, I would know I was sinning. As a believer in Jesus, I turned from my former habit of lying, and felt great peace from the change. Though a year or so ago, without thinking, I told a lie, and was immediately struck with a terrible sense of guilt and retracted it as soon as I could! (For me, the film “Liar Liar” is like normal life, only it’s a blessing not a curse.)
Now I have no idea what has actually gone on in the Vatican, but there is a huge difference between:
1. Encouraging crime, covering it up, denying it, or turning a blind eye to it.
and 2. Dealing with serious allegations internally in a serious and responsible way
When I hear of Vatican “cover up” stories, I assume (and hope) it is actually (2) above, misreported or misunderstood. Deception and lying is not Godly, and it certainly is sinful to deliberately cover crimes up. However, merely not reporting crimes is not deceptive and not sinful.
This post just about sums up why legal entities outside of The Vatican should be the ones investigating the allegations. Child rape isn't a sin, it's a vicious crime against a vulnerable individual. Anyone suspected of carrying out such a crime should be turned over to the local legal authorities so that due process can be served, and anyone not turning such an individual over to the local legal authorities (such as Ratzinger allegedly) is perverting the course of justice and needs to also stand trial. Forgiveness can happen later if those involved wish, but it does not get to substitute legal prosecution and punishment.
We wouldn't accept British Gas or Kraft Foods investigating their employees if they discovered evidence of such vile crimes being committed. We shouldn't accept the Vatican doing it either.
The Pope is God's representative on Earth. If he is guilty of any crimes or misdemeanours then only the Almighty can judge him, not self appointed mortals.
Why should he be above the law? Should we allow all heads of state/religion to get away with crimes?
To arrest the Pope Emeritus would be as pointless as arresting Her Majesty The Queen for the abuses carried out by clergy in the Church of England. Or for the abuses carried out against children sent to Australia by the Anglican Church authorities years ago.
Even though Joseph Ratzinger was in charge of the world-wide cover-up of child sex abuse within the catholic church? You really can't see why people might think he should be held accountable?
Ah, I wondered how they dared to move him from the Vatican, but that explains it. I guess there isn't much chance to arrest someone while they are on board a helicopter.
Should the pope have acted? Yes he should have. You could well argue that it was up to the relevant authorities in the places were the allegations were made that should have carried out the investigations. Its a bit of a stretch to the pope acted illegally. I am not aware of the pope stopping any investigation.
Blair/Bush did act illegally, even though some claim they didnt. This is backed up by them making up stuff and claiming it was fact to justify the war. Also backed by Bush passing a law in his last days as president, which meant him and his cronies could not be tried for any actions that were related to the gulf war. Why would he need such a law if everything was above board?
I take it you haven't read the letter which Ratzinger sent to bishops, telling them how to hide sex abuse in their diocese?
Comments
I didn't say they did. The post I replied to mentioned the Romans and also mentioned Pagans who back in the day did approve of human sacrifices. So, the lions were a reference to the Romans, the sacrifices a reference to the Pagans.
He was, before being appointed by God as Pope, responsible for disciplinary matters throughout the Catholic Church.
I am getting rather tired of his 'not me guv' demeanour in playing the feeble old man.
It's ironic, because while a lot of the New Testament, and in particular 'Revelations', has been interpreted as a semi-political rant against the Roman Empire, the Romans chose to adopt Christianity as the religion to unify their empire (which at the time was a minor Jewish sect, and they had a plethora of these cults, all with their own messiahs to choose from. It's almost pot luck that Christianity was chosen as the tool of choice, but after it was chosen, it was enforced by the sword). That is of course, why all of our indigenous religions no longer exist.
Maybe none of these allegations actually reached The Pope.They could have been hushed up before they even reached him.
The fact is, until very recently most big organisations when faced with abuse didn't know how to react and generally swept the whole thing under the carpet as being too painful/difficult to tackle. Incidentally most families have done exactly the same thing when confronted with abusing relatives .... and lets not forget our own police and social services in Oldham and heaven knows how many other places.
Agree with the rest of your post though. We could just as easily have been posting here speculating on whether the High Priest of Apollo would be arrested upon leaving Corinth.
On the subject of Apollo BTW, if we're talking about Roman persecution what they did to Apollo's followers at Delphi really puts the so-called persecution of Christians in perspective.
The greatest Roman attack on the native British religion came before the empire became Christian, and there is no evidence that the empire forced Christianity onto the British by the sword. Archeaological evidence, although minimal, indicates that both paganism and Christianity co-existed by the time that the Romans left.
There is a clear and obvious precedent for Christians being arrested and persecuted, going back to the Apostles, who were arrested and martyred, including Peter (the alleged “first Pope” according to Catholocism). Plus, of course, Paul, the author of most of the New Testament, was both an evil murderer and a criminal, arrested on several occasions.
So for a true disciple of the Lord Jesus, being arrested should be nothing to fear, since the Lord is sovereign and if we are sent to jail or even killed, it is for God’s greater purpose and can bring us into a closer relationship with the Lord.
One might argue that a man who has committed crimes, been shamed, arrested, and gone to jail, would be a perfect Pope and leader of the church, as he will no doubt be much more aware of his sin, just like the many great biblical figures who did terrible things and repented.
Putting aside my core objections to Catholocism, I find it hard to imagine someone who has lived an extremely easy and luxurious life being a suitable figurehead for a faith which is based on calling out to God in need in our trials, suffering and brokenness.
Romans 5:3–5:
“We also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.”
Something tells me that this is somewhat at odds with the message in the Gospels.
Presumably if a citizen of the Vatican state is within the boundaries of Vatican City itself or one of the numerous extraterritorial properties (e.g. the Palace of Castel Gandolfo summer residence) then immunity would apply. Furthermore, there would have to be actual evidence to indicate that someone was actively involved in the commissioning and undertaking of a crime and that has yet to be demonstrated.
Now I have no idea what has actually gone on in the Vatican, but there is a huge difference between:
1. Encouraging crime, covering it up, denying it, or turning a blind eye to it.
and
2. Dealing with serious allegations internally in a serious and responsible way
When I hear of Vatican “cover up” stories, I assume (and hope) it is actually (2) above, misreported or misunderstood. Deception and lying is not Godly, and it certainly is sinful to deliberately cover crimes up. However, merely not reporting crimes is not deceptive and not sinful.
Any “righteous act” based on a lie or deception is a sin, because dishonesty is not of the Lord’s nature. If I found myself lying about something or actively trying to cover it up, I would know I was sinning. As a believer in Jesus, I turned from my former habit of lying, and felt great peace from the change. Though a year or so ago, without thinking, I told a lie, and was immediately struck with a terrible sense of guilt and retracted it as soon as I could!
We wouldn't accept British Gas or Kraft Foods investigating their employees if they discovered evidence of such vile crimes being committed. We shouldn't accept the Vatican doing it either.
Why should he be above the law?
Even though Joseph Ratzinger was in charge of the world-wide cover-up of child sex abuse within the catholic church? You really can't see why people might think he should be held accountable?
Ah, I wondered how they dared to move him from the Vatican, but that explains it. I guess there isn't much chance to arrest someone while they are on board a helicopter.
I take it you haven't read the letter which Ratzinger sent to bishops, telling them how to hide sex abuse in their diocese?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection