Charges against Pope Benedict XVI alleging crimes against humanity have been initiated at the International Criminal Court. Two German lawyers, Christian Sailer and Gert-Joachim Hetzel from the Pope's home state of Bavaria, have submitted a 16,500-word document indicting the Pope for various crimes against humanity.
Wednesday the Irish Times broke this potentially explosive story, detailing charges initiated against the Pope for crimes against humanity.
The charges were submitted to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court at the Hague, Dr Luis Moreno Ocampo. The charges allege that Pope Benedict preserved and directed an institution responsible for the coercion, extortion and subjugation of its members.
Specific charges include endangering members health by forbidding the use of condoms, as well as enabling and promoting the sexual abuse of children by clergy.
Pope Benedict is charged with the "establishment and maintenance of a worldwide system of cover-up of the sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests and their preferential treatment, which aids and abets ever new crimes.” The allegation goes on:
Dr Joseph Ratzinger, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of his church and as Pope, has up to the present day systematically covered up the sexual abuse of children and youths and protected the perpetrators, thereby aiding and abetting further sexual violence toward young people.
It remains to be seen whether or not the International Criminal Court will address the charges.
Comments
Michael, though we may be far apart on many issues, I appreciate your writing skills and the things for which you are working: the separation of church and state and the exposing religous bigotry.
Religious bigotry?
"The charges allege that Pope Benedict preserved and directed an institution responsible for the coercion, extortion and subjugation of its members."
THIS is bigotry and slander. Open your eyes. The Catholic Church has done nothing against humanity. Yes, including the crusades and the inquisition. In order for something immaterial such as a religion or a dogma to have a direct effect on action, it must explicitly call for that specific action. Does thou shalt not steal or thou shalt not kill sound familiar? It would be foolish to blame science for the atrocities of modern warfare just as it is foolish to blame the immaterial Church for any abhorrent deeds from individuals in the Church.
At the very least be honest. You guys hate the Church because you do not want to grow up. You want to live in a perpetual hedonistic utopian bliss that you very well know you will never see so you take your frustrations out by slandering the Church.
Before you respond so quickly. Seriously stop to think about what I'm saying. I'm positive you guys view yourselves as truth seekers. If you truly are then why haven't you attempted to see the world through the eyes of the Church. Be honest with yourself.
This is a waste of time. The Pope doesn't have the authority to change the Church's stance on condoms, anyone with a basic understanding of Catholic theology could tell you that.
Also as head of CDF and as Pope he has done more than any other prelate to bring the perpetrators of clerical sexual abuse to justice. Also, fun fact, there were per capita more pedophile teachers at the height of the sex abuse crisis than there were priests. I don't see charges being filled against Education Ministers.
Possibly because education ministers weren't trying to cover up for pedophile teachers the way the Vatican was for pedophile priests.
I haven't heard of education ministers refusing to cooperate with police, transfering pedophile teachers to different schools (where they could molest other children) rather than turning them over to the criminal justice system or telling students that it was their fault they were molested and to shut up about it.
On the other hand, the Catholic Church did exactly that. Just substitute "parish" for "school" and "priest" for "teacher" in the paragraph above.
How the Church still tries to wriggle its way from these sordid acts against innocent children.
Anonymous - it would appear to me that you're obviously of the church. Remove the blinkers and get real. Your church is corrupt and rotten and it starts at the top. You deluded fool!
It breaks my heart to see this slander and hatred. Conviction is a poor substitute for objective reality Hanora.
Every Catholic is aware of the terrible things done by clergy members through out history. But as I stated before, in order for something immaterial such as a religion or a dogma to have a direct effect on action, it must explicitly call for that specific action.
Stop listening to the mainstream Hanora, they don't care about you. They want to rip you away from the loving embrace of the Jesus so that they can profit off of you. Start using the logic I'm sure you lay a claim to.
Corrupt, broken, failed, morally bankrupt, responsible for the worst possible crimes against humanity and they try to preach to us.
The sooner their churches are made safe places for children to sooner and the safer society will be. I am advocating 2 things, a minimum joining age of 16 and the conversion of churches into comedy theaters so that the laughter of children can be heard in these dark places for the first time in centuries.
what will be the content of the comedians acts Mr. Brown?
the typical that we see on "Comedy Central"?
if that is the case than let us delve deeper into this issue of "moral bankruptcy"?
For that matter, please cite a paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that you think is "morally bankrupt"?
(baptism of infants and therefore membership of the into the Church was something that was handed down by the Apostles--down look for that to change.)
Indeed, let us charge him with the actions of all those Catholic religious throughout the world, the schools, the food distribution, the medical centers. He has failed to assume responsibility for these as well, and certainly he knows, or ought to, about the systemic help being given to the poor and marginalized, the lepers, the dying, the imprisoned. That he was diligent in eradicating what he called "the filth" counts for nothing if filth existed in the first place. As surely as the perpetrators themselves, he, like everyone in any command position before him, is guilty of the actions of his subordinates if he knew that they were capable of evil (i.e. were human) and allowed them to continue to function.
Except there is absolutely no evidence that as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, or as Pope Benedict XVi, this man did anything illegal.
In fact, the evidence seems to show the opposite. He pushed for the transfer of the more heinous pedophile cases to his authority during the JPII years in order that local bishops couldn't cover up. He was pushing for tougher guidelines when others were trying to hold the line.
To quote one of the abused in Malta who was angry with him before the meeting "You all in Italy do not realize you have a Saint among you."
God Bless Pope Benedict, confound his enemies, and make him long to live upon the Earth.
Also, this is the same man who just ordered the Apostolic Visitation of Ireland to deal with the abuse there. If he was really interested in a cover up, why would he do that?
To the people who say I have blinders, take off your own.
And, just for the hell of it, there was a affidavit filed with the LA Superior Court about a month back from a former FBI agent who was investigating the claims of child abuse among priests in that archdiocese. Roughly 60% of them were frauds.
Take that into consideration, and I renew my point about teachers. If you prefer we can charge the teachers unions instead of the Education Minister, since the unions insist on investigations and due process for their members.
1 Titus 4:1-3 Forbidding to marry is a doctrine of devils.
(the children suffer sexually for not allowing
priests to marry)
Matthew 1:25 Mary "knew" a man after the birth of Jesus.
(so much for the "ever virgin hoax")
Revelation 17,18 Even catholics admit Rome is going to be destroyed by nuclear war
(but somehow miraculously, the bomb doesn't destroy vatican)
(that's the next hoax)
No where in the bible were infants baptized.
The word Baptized means literally to dunk or be
fully immersed.
This sprinkle water business is a hoax.
Peter, the so-called 1st pope, delivered his 1st sermon and said, repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
These people were saved.
Infants can't repent. They can't even talk.
By the way, Peter was married.
Thanks for the breath of fresh truth, 11. I'm glad that some still read the Scripture.
Even catholics teach the last pope will be a "black pope" ...an evil one.
The black pope along with the "anti-christ" will usher in a world of peace. (for a short time)
and the the real Christ returns to set up his government.
The current governments of this world are a joke. see the USA. president spends 1 million to keep hidden the doctor who delivered him at birth. Just show the real certificate already.
@ Apocalypse and Robert,
Scripture iself tells us that it needs to be come to with a certain type of understanding first as the ignorant and unstable twist the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16)
on Infant Baptism:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp
Also, please consult the Didache, for the modes of Baptism that were used in the Church at the end of the 1st century.
As a former Protestant who converted to Catholicism, I am familiar with both sides of the argument and familiar with the typical "regurgitated" misinformation used by anti-Catholic fundamentalists.
cont'd:
Here is how I rersponded to the "doctrine of demons" charge by another:
celibacy:
As a married Catholic I can assure you that the Catholic Church has a high view of marriage (it is a Sacrament as well as a vocation) and does not forbid people from marrying; rather it forbids clergy who have taken a vow of celibacy (as well as marrying those who are already married - bigomy, polygamy, and divorced persons.)
Priestly celibacy is a discipline and not a doctrine in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. The discipline is not the same in every Rite. For example:
"...even today celibacy is not the rule for all Catholic priests. In fact, for Eastern Rite Catholics, married priests are the norm, just as they are for Orthodox and Oriental Christians."
Even in the Eastern churches, though, there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.
continued...
cont'd...
The tradition in the Western or Latin-Rite Church has been for priests as well as bishops to take vows of celibacy, a rule that has been firmly in place since the early Middle Ages. Even today, though, exceptions are made. For example, there are married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.
This begs the question. Why is there such a high esteem placed on celibacy in ancient Christianity? First, we have the example of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother, both perpetual virgins. Second, we have the high esteem placed on celibacy by the Apostles. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians in chapter 7, the celibate St. Paul writes:
"But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. [7] For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. [8] But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I."
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/53007.htm� (accessed 1/ 22/ 2011)
continued...
continued:
And further along we read:
"[31] And they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. [32] But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. [33] But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. [34] And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. [35] And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment."
Ibid.
cont'd...
cont'd...
To quote St. Augustine, commenting to a Manichaean about the passage you alluded to:
"6. So, again, if your exhortations to virginity resembled the teaching of the apostle, 'He who gives in marriage does well, and he who gives not in marriage does better;' 1 Corinthians 7:38 if you taught that marriage is good, and virginity better, as the Church teaches which is truly Christ's Church, you would not have been described in the Spirit's prediction as forbidding to marry. What a man forbids he makes evil; but a good thing may be placed second to a better thing without being forbidden." Contra Faustum Book XXX (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140630.htm) (accessed 1/ 22/ 2011) (emphasis mine)
On St. Matthew 1:25:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
In Baptism, the power is in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
When casting out demons, you cast them out in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Demons would laugh at you if you said "I cast you out in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"
Demons smile when they see people baptized in the "Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" There's no power in titles.
Only the Name of Jesus gives us power.
pope Peter made a man walk by using the Name of Jesus.
Peter baptized using the name of Jesus.
I don't need to read "official teachings" of the catholic church to understand that I must be baptized in the name of Jesus.
Personally, I have witnessed several people being baptized in the name of Jesus. Their lives have been transformed, they are new people. I didn't believe it until I saw it firsthand. Now I believe. My own life is a testimony.
I have also witnessed demons cast out in the name of Jesus. One particular lady was crawling on the ground like a snake but was healed using the name of Jesus. Some people are just not in there right mind. They need healing.
There really is a devil. There really are people who need demons cast out.
You don't need to graduate from certain schools and get certain degrees to have the power of Jesus.
The power is being baptized in Jesus' name. Anyone can do it.
and everyone needs to do it.
Just as there are people who have big problems, there are also organisations. The catholic church is one of those organisations. How do you exorcise the church of child rapists? Starting at the UN looks good to me.
Matthew 1:25 Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son, and he called His name Jesus."
This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mary "knew" Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus.
IF and only IF, the scripture said "knew her not till her death" then the doctrine of the "ever virgin" Mary would be possible.
But anyone who is honest with himself, and loves the truth, knows beyond all doubt that this verse says what it says.
There is absolutely no getting around it.
I was raised catholic. I still have friends who are catholic.
95% of my family is catholic.
But I couldn't get around certain Scriptures. The more I searched for the truth, the more it became obvious I needed to "Come out of her my people, let you partake not in her sins" Revelation 18:4
There are churches who preach the truth and have the power of God. Catholic churches are not the only church in town. Thank God.
did you read any of the links on this?
Luke 1:35 "the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee (Mary), and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee"...therefore
The Holy Spirit and Mary conceived Jesus.
Mary was the mother of Jesus.
The Holy Spirit was the father of Jesus.
The trinity doctrine says the Father is a person, the Son is a person and the Holy Spirit is a person.
If the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus.
and the Father is the father of Jesus.
Then Jesus has 2 Fathers. We have a case of divine adultery.
The truth of the matter is that the Holy Spirit is the Father. they are not separate. the trinity is now down to 2 persons.
Jesus is the Father
Jesus is the Son
Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
Col 2:9 For in Jesus rests all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
You can't see the wind,
but when it swirls fast enough, it forms a funnel and now you see it as a tornado. It comes down to the earth and then disappears suddenly.
You can't see God. But when the right time came, He came down to the earth and then disappeared suddenly.
The wind is the tornado. the tornado is the wind
God is Jesus. Jesus is God. When you see God, you see Jesus
Apocalypse,
respectfully,
your denial of the Holy Trinity only strengthens the Catholic argument against "Sola Scriptura"
Cut the crap and just kill that nasty old child rapist.
Could someone please show me where the word
Trinity is in the bible?
When I go before the throne, is there going to be the Father sitting there, with Jesus sitting on His right hand, and a bird cage holding a dove on the left.
Apocalypse,
It is implicit. But if we are going to take that approach, for that matter, please show me where the Bible teaches "Sola Scriptura", chapter and verse.
also,
if you could show me a passage in the Bible that states exactly what Books are supposed to be in it.
Gal 1:8
Rev 22:18-19
Any person who has not been raised with any religious doctrine and is honest with himself, would be able to read the Word of God and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that some doctrines of the catholic church are directly contrary to the word of God.
Apocalypse,
You commnets seem to be more of an ad hominem argument versus arguing the actual Doctrines in question which any Catholic apolologist would be happy to do.
"If any one is being totally honest..." etc. this is not a good argument but it is just you asserting your opinion
That being said, I do that I will tell you that I came from the Protestant tradition and converted to Catholicism. I did so when I realized that my own interpretations that I held to conflicted with what the earliest Christians who immediately came after the Apostles believed.
In a sense, I could stak the deck against you by quoting an Anglican convert to Catholisism, Blessed John Henty Newman who was a Cardinal:
"to be deep into history is to cease being Protestant." He like I, knew this first hand.
Galatians 1:8 -- It seems like you are trying to imply the CC belongs under St. Paul's anathema. Your thinking this doesn't make it so. Prove it. It can just as easily be turned around on you.
Revelation 22 18-19: First of all, the first codex of the Bible we have dates to the 3rd or 4th century A.D. So if you are implying that "this book" means the 66 Book Protestant Canon than you would have to prove it since Revelation was more than likely a scroll.
Second, if you have ever read Eusebius' "History of the Church", you would know the Revelation was one of the Books disputed by some--making your argument that "this Book" = 66 Book Protestant Canon all the more unlikely.
Finally, neither of these verses prove "Sola Scriptura" not do they show me what Books belong in the Bible.
cont'd.
When I go before the Throne,
I will be referencing one Book.
There's no way I could carry all the catholic books
that teach the traditions of men.
Protestant churches are daughter churches of the harlot church in Rome.
I can ask 100 junior high students with average intelligence
if Matt 1:25 means Mary "knew" a man after giving birth to Jesus
and the answer would be yes.
The early catholic theologians should have deleted this from the manuscipts.
more ad hominem attack, deal with the arguments of the original language please. Junior Hisgh school students don't know Koine Greek.
No one ever advanced such an idea for the first 1500 years or so of Christianity, so the burden of proof is on you and Matthew 1:25 is not a conclusive argument to say the least.
You are right to call John Newman Blessed.
Luke 11:27-28
Jesus wasn't interested in any focus of our worship on His mother. He wanted everyone to obey his commands.
If I obey his Word, I am just as Blessed as Mary.
Why do you pit Jesus and His mother against one another?
do all generations call you blessed? (Luke 1:48)
Catholics don't worship Mary, we venerate her (as the Early Church Father's who were the successors of the Apostles did) so this is a straw man argument.
**I take back that nobody attacked the Perpetual Virginity of Mary before the Protestant schism(s). St. Jerome refuted Helvidius on the issue back in the 4th century; he was very familiar with Greek and Hebrew:
Here is his work in mention:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
It is almost impossible to have a simple dialogue with a person who is 100% loyal to a certain doctrine.
I could say the same thing..
why not deal with the arguments themselves?
When I am before the throne on Judgement Day,
I will tell Jesus (The One who sits on throne)
that I obeyed St. Peter who had the keys.
St. Peter's first sermon. Repent, and be baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins........
Several thousand people were saved.
the problem is, acpocalypse, that when you isolate one text from the Bible and don't take it as a whole within the context of what has been taught for 2,000 years. Don't believe me? Read the works written by Christians who succeeded the Apostles in their ministries and you will clearly see what Scripture itself reflects, when taken together as a whole.
I read the whole book of Acts and several thousand people were saved by the same method.
If you add/subtract from this method, you run the risk of losing this same salvation that the early Christians experienced.
I'm not going to obey another man's word that adds/subtracts from this method.
To teach a child to say "Hail Mary, mother of God," over and over and over a gazillion times will train them to place a much greater importance on Mary. This is very risky, and to me is part of the overall method of disception.
Priests wear black underneath their white robes. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Not my opinion, but just a thought I had.
The catholic church heirarchy is corrupt to the core.
The local priests are unaware of what goes on behind closed doors at the Vatican.
The word Vatican literally has a meaning that is rather ominous.
Over 1/2 the members of the church at the Vatican are Masons.
Converting from Protestant to Catholic is like going from the frying pan into the fire.
I told a priest one time that I was raised catholic, but that I didn't go to a catholic church anymore.
He said "you will always be a catholic" regardless of what church you go to. Then he said "I'll prove it". He said "How did you get baptized?"
I said "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ"
He said "wow, maybe you're not catholic after all"
The power is in the name.
"love the Lord with all your heart"
The next time you venerate Mary, just realize that you could be loving the Lord instead.
can you love your mother and the Lord? I can love my wife and I can love the Lord too. Mary is the mother of all Christians (John 19: 26-27) (side note: why give His mother to John if she had other children; why not just let them take care of her?)
To God alone is due worship (latria.)
on your other points:
you are painting with a broad brush; for those who might deserve to be painted in such a way, the Catholic Church never claims impeccability for it's members; from the Pope on down to the laity. There is a saying that goes: "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." The Lord said that there would be tares among the wheat.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterated the centuries old position on the incompatibility of freemasonry and Catholics; the 1917 Code of Canon Law dealt specifically with the issue (which has never been abrogated) as well as does Canon 2335 in the 1983 Code (current.)
this information and more from here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFMASN1.HTM
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!