Let he who is without sin cast the first stone....

DKit

That's just fatuous, DKit.

>>Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...<<

On that basis, you would not have countenanced any criticism of Pol Pot's "Year Zero" activities in 1975-79. Or the actions of any other tyrant you care to name, simply because there are a few sinners around?

Not suggesting the Pope is a tyrant. Just pointing out the absurdity of your contribution to the discussion.

This article is just another desperate attempt to find something to dislike about the new pope. However to use the words of Mary Anastasia O'Grady of The Wall Street Journal: "Intellectually honest observers with firsthand knowledge of Argentina under military rule (1976-1983) are telling a much different story".

Speaking of firsthand knowledge, Former Judge Alicia Oliveira, who had to go into hiding during this time, knew Father Bergoglio personally, stating that "he helped many people get out of the country." And Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, winner of the 1980 Nobel Peace Prize, last week confirmed "there were bishops that were complicit with the dictatorship, but Bergoglio, no."

There are numerous other firsthand accounts I could quote. The fact remains that his critics are confronted by an outspoken leader who practices what he preaches, serves the poor not only by his words but by his deeds, and is a true example of humility in a self-obsessed, materialistic society. Trying to label Pope Francis as a war criminal is simply not going to hold against the facts.

The hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic church, is an insult to its followers.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cardinal-keith-obrien

Kipp,

You might be interested that Cardinal Keith O'Brien, and Pope Francis, who is the subject of the article, are two different persons.

Mary E,

I think your post is very much to the point, so perhaps you (and those who are after facts rather than slander) would be interested in the link I already provided in another thread: http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/126858/bergoglio-didnt-gave-us-up-jalics.

It is in the public domain, that Pope Benedict was aware of the abuses by Cardinal Obrien, and one cannot isolate this issue, and the many other abuses carried out by the catholic clerg; from the catholic church as a whole.

On my alternate media there are conflicting views about this Pope Francis.Webster Tarpley thinks his great as he is not a CIA man as is against austerity.Prof Michel Chossudovsky thinks that he was chosen to enslave South America and more particularly Venezuela for its oil and independant banking system.

Time will tell but I trust no Roman Catholic Pope as they supported the Nazis during WW2 and have a long history of oppression to achieve power.

It would seem it doesn't matter who or what you are, there's always something dubious or suspicious about us? Therefore wouldn't it be fairer for the moment, to closely observe him for now, and judge him on all his future activities as Pope.

Rather than to judge him on material that's seems based only on rummour, and could well prove wholly fallacious?

I find it interesting how we always seek to find flaws in important people, usually based on mere hearsay and is often just suppositional. Still the Catholic Church does need to work very hard in order to restore much of the trust and faith it lost, even squandered, after the awful, criminal behaviour of many of it's priests and others within it's aegis.

Their overt willingness to fully collaborate with the upcoming Royal Commission into crimes perpetrated against children, will be closely observed. By the many victims who have hitherto followed the Church, it's pastoral and ecclesiastical teachings.

Maybe then, the Church can begin the long process of rebuilding that essential trust, and become a true spiritual force once more.

Another link for those interested more in facts than in slander:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578362701947035938.html

I would suggest that we need to take a much wider and longer view both historically, and in the now-time of 2013, of the applied politics of the Catholic church altogether.
Therefore why not Google - The Vatican in World Politics.

One very iteresting reference that comes up is this one:
http://concordatwatch.eu a site which is very much relevant as to how the Catholic church uses deliberate deception to further its power, and to obtain FOREVER immunity from any kind of democratic accountability.

Also http://www.vaticancrimes.us

Whenever you read anything about the Catholic church in the Wall street Journal or any of the Murdoch press remember that Rupert Murdoch is a right wing Catholic and a Knight of the church too - a Knight Commander of Saint Gregory in fact.

>>Rupert Murdoch is a right wing Catholic and a Knight of the church too<<

“Pope John Paul II has awarded papal knighthood to comedian Bob Hope, news magnate Rupert Murdoch and entertainment executive Roy Disney--all non-Catholics” (http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jan/03/local/me-4508)

So I still think that facts are more important than expressions of personal frustrations, whatever their cause, especially if both, the facts and frustrations, are only very marginally related to the original question stated in this article: Does Mario Bergoglio, Pope Francis, have blood on his hands?