Should Pope Benedict condemn Paul VI and John Paul II over the clergy abuse?
In noticing all of the attacks against the Pope over the abuse scandals.  Action keeps being demanded of him in the area of resignation or more liberal reforms.  But who thinks the solution or a necessary part of the solution  may be a papal condemnation of his two major predecessors? 
It certainly is the easiest course seeing as how both JPII and Paul VI are dead and cannot defend themselves.
(03-30-2010, 01:19 PM)amasimp Wrote: It certainly is the easiest course seeing as how both JPII and Paul VI are dead and cannot defend themselves.

Only another Pope can rule on a previous Pope in any legitimate way.  So, the fact that they are dead and cannot defend themselves on one hand  and on the other hand they got away with any injustices they committed in this life, are part and parcel of a supreme papacy. 

JPII didn't have any problem condemning members of the Church who were dead regarding the trial of Galileo, the Crusades or the Inquisition.  They couldn't defend themselves to his sweeping and historically biased and innacurate statements.

No it would be seen and taken as passing the buck. The best way is this
Do what he has done re letters.
Fix the plms. Get rid of homo priests and pedo bishops
Stand fast to what he's doing and let the libtards and media whores rant all they want tough.
And grant the sspx whatever legal means there is to ie personal prelature or something else to to have full juristiction and be away from libtard meddling.
Whatever he should do he hould not and I'm sure he's been advized on this should not give into one demand and if anything ignore or fight back as I noted

He probably should, but he won't, especially since he's praised Pope Paul VI in the recent past for his role in Vatican II, and he's trying to fast track the Beatification and Canonization of Pope John Paul II, this in spite of the fact the latter tied his hands in more than one instance. I also don't think many past Popes have condemned their predecessors by name, Pope Stephen VI and Pope Formosus notwithstanding.

One of the good things that can come out of this scandal is that should it derail the plans to Beatify and Canonize Pope JP II permanently, because the media and others who are blaming the current Pontiff for the scandals by the same standard can't let his predecessor off the hook now matter how popular he was. There is no way he was unaware of it, no matter what his apologists say.

It'd be pretty cool if he dug out John Paul's bones and put them on trial. (supposedly what happened to Pope Formosus in 897)

[Image: 800px-Jean_Paul_Laurens_Le_Pape_Formose_...I_1870.jpg]
It's already happening somewhat with Cardinal Schoenborn coming to the Pope's defense by spilling this story:

Damien Thompson:

"Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger tried to persuade Pope John Paul II to mount a full investigation into a cardinal who abused boys and young monks, one of the Church’s most senior figures revealed yesterday. But Ratzinger’s opponents in the Vatican managed to block the inquiry. As the future Benedict XVI put it: “The other side won.”

The pervert cardinal was the late Hans Hermann Groer, removed as Archbishop of Vienna in 1995 following sex allegations. The source for the story is Groer’s successor in Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, an intellectual whom some commentators have tipped as a possible future Pope.

That’s quite a revelation, in my book – but it doesn’t fit the script that the Benedict-hating media have written, so we’re not hearing too much about it. Also, I suspect that former advisers to John Paul would rather not remind us that the late Pope didn’t do enough to curb sex abuse and cover-ups. Safer to blame Benedict, eh?

Here’s the quote from a report by Philip Pullella of Reuters:

Vienna’s Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, in defence of the pope, told ORF Austrian television on Sunday that Benedict wanted a full probe when former Vienna Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer was removed in 1995 for alleged sexual abuse of a boy.

But other Curia officials persuaded the then Pope John Paul that the media had exaggerated the case and an inquiry would only create more bad publicity.

“Ratzinger told me, ‘the other side won’,” Schoenborn said.

The other side. I suspect he was referring to a Vatican old boys’ club that Cardinal Ratzinger never joined, and which didn’t want sex abuse cases to “damage the good name of the Church” (ie, disturb their back-slapping suppers in favoured trattorie).

And the irony is that the journalists who have written lazy and hate-filled articles about Benedict XVI – such as this dreadful piece by India Knight, someone I’d previously admired – are unwittingly providing protection to the really compromised figures in the Vatican and bishops’ conferences.

Groer, who was as guilty as hell, died in 2003. Here is a BBC report from 1998:

The news agency of the Roman Catholic Church in Austria says a former Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer, is to go into exile, because of accusations against him of sexual misconduct.

The report follows the release of a statement by the church in Vienna in which Cardinal Groer, 78, asked for forgiveness but made no admission of guilt.

“In the past three years there have been many often incorrect statements concerning me. I ask God and the people for forgiveness if I have brought guilt upon myself,” he says in the statement.

Cardinal Groer stepped down as head of the Roman Catholic Church in Austria in 1995 following charges that he had sexually abused a schoolboy 20 years earlier. After his resignation there were further allegations that he sexually molested monks.

The charges were ignored by the Church hierarchy until two months ago when a papal investigation commenced. The inquiry was ordered by the Pope after appeals from church leaders to settle the controversy and restore the Church’s status in Austria.

Now the statement follows a request from the Pope that Cardinal Groer give up his duties and is being taken as a sign that the investigation has found against him.

The BBC correspondent in Vienna says many Catholics in Austria are bitterly divided over the issue and some have accused the Church of covering up.

The Bishop’s chancellery in Vienna said no further steps are expected from Rome. The correspondent says this is likely to further offend the many Catholics who think Hermann Groer should no longer be a cardinal.

No further steps from Rome. Why? Probably because, according to Cardinal Schoenborn – who has some maverick views but is certainly not a liar – the future Benedict XVI had lost his battle to mount a proper investigation of a sex abuser Cardinal, instead of the secretive and inconclusive one that apparently took place. No wonder he demanded full authority to investigate these cases and assumed greater responsibility for them in 2001.

He’s facing a terrible situation, no doubt about it; and no doubt also he made mistakes himself: the fact that he was far more vigilant than other cardinals doesn’t mean he was vigilant enough.

But history will show that it was Benedict XVI, not John Paul II, who initiated the “purification” of the Church to remove its “filth” – his words, and uttered long before this current crisis arose."
I agree with DK. Condemnations of his predecessor would only make things worse. He must weather the storm.

It's pretty clear that the Pope is doing a good job. If he wasn't, the world wouldn't be trying to get rid of him.
(03-30-2010, 01:52 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: It'd be pretty cool if he dug out John Paul's bones and put them on trial. (supposedly what happened to Pope Formosus in 897)

[Image: 800px-Jean_Paul_Laurens_Le_Pape_Formose_...I_1870.jpg]

If I were Pope I would do this to John XXIII Paul VI and JPII. Its really sad that JPII the idiot is getting passed over when this is his fault.
I'm pretty much with DK on this one.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)