.

(Continued …)

.

Both Pope Francis and his predecessor, Benoît XVI, are potentially exposed to indictment for the cover-up of sexual abuse by the clergy and other representatives of the Catholic Church throughout the world. But the sexual abuse commenced well before the tenures of Pope Francis and Benoît XVI. It is so vast and deep-rooted, its origins can be traced back to the tenure of Jean-Paul II and beyond.

Here are a couple of articles relating to the paedophilia that occurred around the world within the Catholic Church during Jean-Paul II’s tenure, and how he reacted to it :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/10787986/Pope-John-Paul-II-was-no-saint-but-a-man-who-covered-up-sin.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20140904232428/http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/Pedophilia-Pope-Law/Pedophilia-PopeorderedLaw.htm

Jean-Paul’s only concern was to protect the Church – not the innocent little victims. He obviously didn’t care about them. He seemed to consider that they were the problem.

Apparently, the Church was delighted because it canonised him and made him a saint four years ago, on April 27, 2014 – just nine years after his death (his beatification and canonisation having been “fast-tracked”).

The Requiem Mass for Jean-Paul II, held on 8 April 2005, was said to have set world records both for attendance and number of heads of state present at a funeral. It was the single largest gathering of heads of state in history, surpassing the funerals of Winston Churchill (1965) and Josip Broz Tito (1980). Four kings, five queens, at least 70 presidents and prime ministers, and more than 14 leaders of other religions attended alongside “the faithful”. It is likely to have been the largest single pilgrimage of Christianity ever with numbers estimated in excess of four million mourners gathering in and around Vatican City. Between 250,000 and 300,000 watched the event from within the Vatican's walls.

On the death of John Paul II, a number of clergy at the Vatican and laymen throughout the world began referring to the late pontiff as "John Paul the Great"— only the fourth pope to be so acclaimed, and the first since the first millennium.

Oh! Justice! What crimes are committed in thy name !

.

.

(Continued …)

.

John Paul II had the good fortune to die peacefully, in office, at the ripe old age of 82 without having to defend himself before the International Criminal Court on charges of cover-up of rape and other sexual crimes committed during the 27 years of his tenure (the second longest in modern history), from 1978 to 2005.

Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) never leaves the tiny enclave of the Vatican since his retirement because he no longer has the benefit of any of his former protections as Pope – legal immunity as Head of State, in particular – and risks indictment by the ICC on criminal charges of cover-up of rape and other sexual crimes committed during his 8 years tenure as Pope, from 2005 to 2013.

Pope Francis, has no intention of providing a detailed response to the accusations of Carlo Maria Viganò (a retired archbishop and Vatican diplomat to the US) that he covered-up rape and other sexual crimes committed within the Catholic Church – in particular, that of the former archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick – since his election as Pope, in 2013. He has legal immunity as Head of State and protection by being immensely popular.

Under the reigns of these three Popes, paedophilia, rape and other sexual crimes have been committed (and continue to be committed) by members of the clergy at all levels on a massive scale throughout the world.

For the past 40 years, not one of them has offered to assume any responsibility for these crimes. Yet there is every reason to believe that all three actively sought to cover them up to preserve the hypocritic moral respectability of the Church – without the slightest concern for the innocent victims.

John Paul II is no longer of this world and has been made a saint. The other two are doing everything in their power to avoid prosecution.

Unlike Jesus in a similar situation, they obviously don’t want to be left holding the bag. I guess they don’t have the same faith in their “saviour” as he did.

.

To David.

Sorry for how long I've taken to reply.

I wish I had an answer to the evils of the world. Both the horribleness that is caused by men, and the horrors that devastate the world by natural disasters, by disease, by famine, and by so much more. I don't have an answer because the scale of evil in the world is so much bigger then any answer I can offer. And also even if there is an answer I can offer, giving it an answer is often taken as if it is an excuse, either for harms in the world, or for justifying to not care for the harms experienced.

The harms of the world is a reason to reach out to help it. Even if we don't understand why they are there.

That said there is one thing I can say. Your observations that God hasn't responded to you might be true. But they don't counter the observations of people who say that God has acted in their life. Though your conclusions are based on your observations and perspectives, they don't account for the diverse accounts and experiences throughout the world about God.

I wish you luck and hope you can find God. He's worth finding. And even though we live in a broken and evil world, God does love us. I don't have an explanation for the evil but I know the love. Good luck.

2 marriage things for an enlightened society.

1. All fathers should be required to take their sons to a sex worker on their 16th birthday so sex is NOT the reason for marrying. This will also create jobs for women who will be protected by law, the same as any medical practicioner, for their service to the community.
Don't be too quick to reject this idea for it will make the millions of ordinary men and women very happy and the 'few' billionaires and politicians inconsolable.

2. Marriage created by religion and taxed by the Government is a stitch up for men and a sentence of lonliness for women. Like all fiscal unions marriage should be by a government mandated legal contract so both parties will know precisely what to expect from each other and what will happen at divorce. Lawyers should be used. In particular hot button issues like who puts out the trash etc should be agreed upon. Like all contracts, lawyer advised renegotiations should be allowed.

This option doesn't take away romance or love it merely protects the parties in the bustle of life that can destroy the ability of the mind to remember the reasons for the union.

Its a safety net against changes in society brought on by an increasingly hostile cadre of billionaires and megalomaniac politicians who see married couples a expendable pieces an a Monopoly board.

Just remember next time you fight and have no contract to say who is right or wrong, a billionaire somewhere is thanking his 'god' for the profits.

Dear Fred,

«All fathers should be required to take their sons to a sex worker on their 16th birthday»

Sounds pretty authoritarian to me: so will all boys on their 16th birthday be forced only to enter the room, or also to perform? because the latter is named RAPE!

So we can expect boys to be scared of their 16th birthday, perhaps run away from home the day before, especially if they observe the vow of celibacy, if they are homosexual, or if they want to remain faithful to their girlfriend, perhaps also if they are still shy or haven't developed those urges yet (if ever).

Fortunately it is not that easy to drag a kicking-and-screaming 16 y.o. boy against their will.

And what would they learn?
That sex is a pure physical act, performed as quickly as you can with someone for whom your only emotions could be fear and disgust - how enlightening...

Not_Now.Soon.
People believe things for all sorts of reasons, often because of what they have been taught as children. Most of us believed the stories about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy and we often saw real physical manifestations of same. However in the realm of the belief in God, most of us have not seen any physical evidence, we relied on the teaching of others who we respected. In recent years, many of us have lost our respect of those who purport to be representatives of God and as a consequence some also have lost their belief in what they have taught us. Others believe because they have had a dream in which God has spoken to them. We nearly all have dreams, for whatever reason. They appear real to us at the time, but that is all they are, dreams. Disbelief, in my case didn't just happen. It occurred over a period of many years of observing the human condition. That is why I no longer can accept that your "God of love" exists. As I have said before, if he did exist, why did he desert Jesus in his hour of need. No one seems to satisfactorily answer that question.

David