i do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Be...927.E2.80.9351

http://njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/020...nOfBishop.html

google is your friend Stu

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005...hildprotection

I skimmed thru those:

The wiki article seemed to indicate he was an unwilling participant in the Nazi party.

Unexcommunicating that bishop had nothing to do with membership in the Nazi party.

I'm not sure how you can justify saying the Pope is a Nazi other than you're simply out to smear him.

From Reuters:
The Vatican on Thursday angrily attacked the media over its reporting of sexual abuse of children by priests, saying there was an "ignoble attempt" to smear Pope Benedict 'at any cost'.

"The prevalent tendency in the media is to ignore the facts and stretch interpretations with the aim of spreading the picture of the Catholic Church as the only one responsible for sexual abuse, something which does not correspond to reality, the Vatican newspaper said."

[end Reuters citation]

The Vatican wasn't referring to Nazi allegations. It was saying that the media claims that the Church is "the only one responsible for sexual abuse." That is a ludicrous claim. The news story with the picture you object to headlines the Vienna Boys Choir, so the Church is clearly not being fingered by the media as "the only one responsible for sexual abuse."

Further from Reuters:
One of the pope's top aides, Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, denounced what he called "a conspiracy" against the church.

"This is a pretext for attacking the church," he said. "There is a well-organized plan with a very clear aim,"

[end Reuters citation]

The priest molested 200 kids. The current Pope was in charge of The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Where is a conspiracy against the church? Where is a smear by the media? Where is an attack on the church?

I take it Justin you think the church does not have the right to hold conical investigations behind closed doors?

"Solicitation in confession against disabled minors."

Those words stand out most memorably in the documents published by the NYT. There's no outrage from the Vatican over that. No, the outrage is reserved for the NYT publishing the documents, which is a "conspiracy."

"and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood."

Let's say that they find a priest has molested 200 disabled minors in confession. Should they be able to keep such information confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reach adulthood?

Archbishop Bertone said that "'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded." [my emphasis] Do you agree?

the wiki link showed clearly that he was a member of the hitler youth = nazi , now if you want to debate wether he was or was not a willing member that is up to you.(obv hes gonna say he was an unwilling member seeing as the nazis lost the war).

as for the second link it shows he was willing to bring a holocaust denier back into the flock.

i do agree that all the stories coming out now concerning the pope , his brother and how poorly the church have handled all the controversy does seem like a smear job.(not that they all dont deserve it)

The first paragraph of the vatican's response to the NY Times article is a condemnation of Murpheys actions.

I also think you're being niave again to expect internal documents concerning a judicial proceeding should be demagogic.

STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE, FR FEDERICO LOMBARDI, S.I., CONCERNING THE "MURPHY CASE" , 25.03.2010

How does that make him a Nazi?

How does denying the holocaust make one not a catholic? There is no doctrine in the Catholic church that says one must believe in the holocaust to be a Catholic so why should that have any bearing on is un-excommunication?

If a jew denied the holocaust would that make him not jewish?

"See now you're trying to smear the Pope too. What you wrote simply isn't true. The first paragraph of the vatican's response to the NY Times article is a condemnation of Murpheys actions."

There's no outrage in the statement you linked. And that statement isn't the statement accusing the media of a conspiracy or a smear. Of course the Vatican has to condemn the priest now that the facts are in the open: that has been the way they've dealt with the pedophiles from the beginning: deny, cover up, then admit when you have to.

Sometime You don't provide any links to your sources so I had to find my own. I actually tried to find the editorial that you are referring too and could not. I'm sorry but thats all I could find.

Perhaps you could provide us with the actual editorial where you claim the vatican claims "conspiracy". I'd like to read the whole thing.

If the priest admitted the offence in confession the bishop is expected to give up his life before telling anyone else of it.

Would you expect a pedophile's attorney to go to the police if his client admitted to him his crimes?

I've been looking for a complete text myself, and can't find it. I looked through the Vatican's website and didn't see it. It was an editorial in the Vatican newspaper: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100325/ts_nm/us_pope_abuse The comments of one of the pope's top aides, Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins about a "conspiracy" was during a breakfast meeting with reporters. But again all I find is excerpts in new stories about the quotations. None of the reported quotes have been denied by the Vatican.

No, but he wouldn't be invited to many parties in the community.

you are quite happy to say how he was an unwilling nazi because that is what wikipedia said , well wiki also said he was a member of nazi youth.

you cannot have it both ways Stu.

Who's talking about confession? The information is found out through the internal investigation of the Church, through Cardinal Ratzinger's office.

You're comparing an attorney defending a client to the Church defending its priests? You expect the Church to have the same standards of morality as a criminal defense attorney? Maybe you are, because it sure seems like it does.

As I understand it, every non-Jewish German child of 14 was automatically a member of the Nazi youth. Ratzinger's father was anti-Nazi and Ratzinger appears to have been so as well.

I still haven't found the actual editorial, but I did find this:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/1001246.htm

Which as some commentary you might be interested in.

It depends on how the abuse was admitted. If the abuse is admitted in the confessional, yes I am making that comparision.

sexual abuse and confession

I suspect many of these pedophile priest confessed to their bishops who then weren't sure how to handle the situation other than they have to maintain the sanctity of the confessional.

Stu seriously get some help. You make me sick.

This. Believing vs disbelieving in the Holocaust is not a required doctrine of the Catholic Faith. If you think it is, please show me. All members must use prudence when decided what to believe. The Church wants everyone to join, sinner and conspiracy theoriest alike to receive Jesus in the body and the spirit.

Things you can believe and still be Catholic, protestant, agnostic, or democrat, republican, boy scout, etc:

1. Holocaust never happened
2. Never landed on Moon
3. Creationism. (Yes, there are agnostic creationists.)

Things you can't believe and still be Catholic:
1. Abortion and contraception are moral
2. Catholic Church is not the One True Church
3. Jesus is not God

See the difference?

grunch - tl;dr obv. but can somone sparknotes for me, i just want to know if the theists are actually defending the kid raper because he confesses a similar god as them.

do you realise how many catholics are being affected by the no contraception crap in Africa where AIDS is rampant, and the pope told them that condoms will not help them.

cmon your'e trying to defend the indefensible.

there can be no other reason for these guys defending this silly church and kiddie raper other than they are members of the same church.

****ing sickos.