TWO GERMAN lawyers have initiated charges against Pope Benedict XVI at the International Criminal Court, alleging crimes against humanity.
Christian Sailer and Gert-Joachim Hetzel, based at Marktheidenfeld in the Pope’s home state of Bavaria, last week submitted a 16,500-word document to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court at the Hague, Dr Luis Moreno Ocampo.
Their charges concern “three worldwide crimes which until now have not been denounced . . . (as) the traditional reverence toward ‘ecclesiastical authority’ has clouded the sense of right and wrong”.
They claim the Pope “is responsible for the preservation and leadership of a worldwide totalitarian regime of coercion which subjugates its members with terrifying and health-endangering threats”.
They allege he is also responsible for “the adherence to a fatal forbiddance of the use of condoms, even when the danger of HIV-Aids infection exists” and for “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”.
They claim the Catholic Church “acquires its members through a compulsory act, namely, through the baptism of infants that do not yet have a will of their own”. This act was “irrevocable” and is buttressed by threats of excommunication and the fires of hell.
It was “a grave impairment of the personal freedom of development and of a person’s emotional and mental integrity”. The Pope was “responsible for its preservation and enforcement and, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of his Church, he was jointly responsible” with Pope John Paul II.
Catholics “threatened by HIV-AIDS . . . are faced with a terrible alternative: If they protect themselves with condoms during sexual intercourse, they become grave sinners; if they do not protect themselves out of fear of the punishment of sin threatened by the church, they become candidates for death.”
There was also “strong suspicion that 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."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... tml?via=mr
Germans take on the Pope..
Germans take on the Pope..
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Germans take on the Pope..
What ridiculous grandstanding....
Some people will do anything for publicity....
Obviously this pair thinks this will drum up some business with the Catholiphobe community....
Some people will do anything for publicity....
Obviously this pair thinks this will drum up some business with the Catholiphobe community....
Re: Germans take on the Pope..
Do Germans recognize the efficacy of a "dope slap"?
Last time I checked, the Catholic Church had no power to prevent or compel anyone to do anything. I know lots of people who were baptized as infants and drug to church faithfully for years by their parents, and yet have not seen the inside of a church in decades. And the Catholic Police are strangely unable to rectify this broad insult to The Faith.
I know people who were born and raised Catholic, and yet live open and notiously in sin with "partners" who are not their spouses and some of whom are even of the same gender (wink, wink). Where are the Church's enforcement troops when you need them?
In fact, if there is any evidence that the teachings of the Catholic Church can prohibit (effectively) anyone from sinning, I'd like to see it.
And people are spreading AIDS because of Catholic teachings? W. O. W.
Last time I checked, the Catholic Church taught that the only permissible sex was within a monogamous marriage. It is quite a challenge to contract AIDS with this crushing constraint.
Maybe these guys could sue the U.S. Government in the ICC for crimes against humanity when it decided to subsidize tobacco farmers.
Maybe they could sue the German government (successor to the Third Reich) for crimes against humanity for...well, actually...crimes against humanity?
Last time I checked, the Catholic Church had no power to prevent or compel anyone to do anything. I know lots of people who were baptized as infants and drug to church faithfully for years by their parents, and yet have not seen the inside of a church in decades. And the Catholic Police are strangely unable to rectify this broad insult to The Faith.
I know people who were born and raised Catholic, and yet live open and notiously in sin with "partners" who are not their spouses and some of whom are even of the same gender (wink, wink). Where are the Church's enforcement troops when you need them?
In fact, if there is any evidence that the teachings of the Catholic Church can prohibit (effectively) anyone from sinning, I'd like to see it.
And people are spreading AIDS because of Catholic teachings? W. O. W.
Last time I checked, the Catholic Church taught that the only permissible sex was within a monogamous marriage. It is quite a challenge to contract AIDS with this crushing constraint.
Maybe these guys could sue the U.S. Government in the ICC for crimes against humanity when it decided to subsidize tobacco farmers.
Maybe they could sue the German government (successor to the Third Reich) for crimes against humanity for...well, actually...crimes against humanity?
Re: Germans take on the Pope..
Come on, monogamous or not, one partner could easily contract it through a blood transfusion or use of a contaminated instrument or needle, and the other though the sanctioned sex acts. Not to mention that one partner might be monogamous, and the other not--does it make sense to not allow a partner who is monogamous but having some doubt about his/her partner from protecting themselves? I can't see why.It is quite a challenge to contract AIDS with this crushing constraint.
But FWIW, the catholic church is a religion and should be free to preach its beliefs as it sees fit, free from any government intrusion.
As for covering up sexual abuse of children by the clergy, if this can be proven, those who have participated (including the institution as applicable) should be punished and the victims should be made whole to the greatest extent possible).
Re: Germans take on the Pope..
Catholics “threatened by HIV-AIDS . . . are faced with a terrible alternative: If they protect themselves with condoms during sexual intercourse, they become grave sinners; if they do not protect themselves out of fear of the punishment of sin threatened by the church, they become candidates for death."
I think these people are all wet.
Let's look at the possibilities from a RC perspective. If one is unmarried then there is no problem. There is no need to protect oneself from HIV because one will engage in no acts that could transmit the bug. If they imply that sexual interourse between unmarried persons is a given, and the only question is whether to use "protection," that is fatuous. The sexual intercourse itself is sinful, so why worry about using a condom?
If one is married to someone who is known to be infected, the presumable RC options would be: (1) abstain from sexual contact, (2) go ahead and take the risk (infection is not inevitable), or (3) use "protection" in order to avoid infection - NOT to prevent conception. I think that would work. The Church recognizes the importance of sexual intimacy to a marital relationship, and if the primary purpose of, say, a condom is to reduce the chance of infection of the non-infected spouse, I think most priests outside Italy would counsel to go ahead and use protection.
If one SUSPECTS that his spouse may be infected, presumably there is a moral imperative to find out without undue delay, then the moral rules become a little more clear. I think the Bible (though not necessarily the RC church) gives an "out" to one who is married to an adulterer.
There is no doubt that somewhere in the background of Cardinal Ratzinger, he was personally aware of at least one priest who was credibly accused of "crimes against nature" with a child, and either authorized or permitted the priest to be reassigned with the hope that the problem would go away. At the time when Ratzinger entered into the Church hierarchy, this was how such situations were handled (or not). Hear the priest's confession, make him promise to sin no more, and send him someplace else without notifying the civil authorities.
Right now, each country is dealing with these situation according to their own civil and criminal laws. They each independently decide about things like statutes of limitations, vicarious fault (bishops for priests), degree of guilt, and so forth. Bringing this action in the ICC is nothing but anti-Catholic grandstanding.
I think these people are all wet.
Let's look at the possibilities from a RC perspective. If one is unmarried then there is no problem. There is no need to protect oneself from HIV because one will engage in no acts that could transmit the bug. If they imply that sexual interourse between unmarried persons is a given, and the only question is whether to use "protection," that is fatuous. The sexual intercourse itself is sinful, so why worry about using a condom?
If one is married to someone who is known to be infected, the presumable RC options would be: (1) abstain from sexual contact, (2) go ahead and take the risk (infection is not inevitable), or (3) use "protection" in order to avoid infection - NOT to prevent conception. I think that would work. The Church recognizes the importance of sexual intimacy to a marital relationship, and if the primary purpose of, say, a condom is to reduce the chance of infection of the non-infected spouse, I think most priests outside Italy would counsel to go ahead and use protection.
If one SUSPECTS that his spouse may be infected, presumably there is a moral imperative to find out without undue delay, then the moral rules become a little more clear. I think the Bible (though not necessarily the RC church) gives an "out" to one who is married to an adulterer.
There is no doubt that somewhere in the background of Cardinal Ratzinger, he was personally aware of at least one priest who was credibly accused of "crimes against nature" with a child, and either authorized or permitted the priest to be reassigned with the hope that the problem would go away. At the time when Ratzinger entered into the Church hierarchy, this was how such situations were handled (or not). Hear the priest's confession, make him promise to sin no more, and send him someplace else without notifying the civil authorities.
Right now, each country is dealing with these situation according to their own civil and criminal laws. They each independently decide about things like statutes of limitations, vicarious fault (bishops for priests), degree of guilt, and so forth. Bringing this action in the ICC is nothing but anti-Catholic grandstanding.