Charges against pontiff filed in Hauge

[tolpuddlemartyr]

According to Hugh Kramer of the Examiner charges have been filed against the pope at the International Criminal Court in the Hauge.

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.
Advertisement

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”.

In a word, awesome! ;D

[lighthorseman]

If one accepts that the prospect of being declared a sinner is a real and credible thing to be threatened with... does that not imply that the religion behind the declaration is entitled to say what it says?

I may be explaining that badly.

If people are worried about being declared sinners, does that not suggest that they implicitly accept the authority of their religion to make that declaration in the first place?

Third attempt.; If you don't want to be a Catholic, what the church says doesn't effect you. If you want to be a Catholic, then it's not unreasonable to expect one to play by the club's rules, right?

If people were being FORCED to be Catholics against their will, then I would agree with the language and intent of the charges. But so long as Catholicism is voluntary I don't believe it holds.

[Art Vandelay]

I think the point here is essentially just to proclaim that Catholicism is ass. I doubt there is a person alive who believes there'll be any negative consequences against the pope whatsoever.

[wmdkitty]

@lhm -- what about the children who were forced, by their parents, to be Catholic?

[Napoleon the Clown]

While this is funny, I think it's utterly pointless. Actually putting the fucking Pope on trial for war crimes would be a bitch and a half. Getting him to follow a sentence? Impossible.

[lighthorseman]

May 1, 2011 22:06:11 GMT -5 wmdkitty said:

@lhm -- what about the children who were forced, by their parents, to be Catholic?

*sigh* There is a school of thought that says parents shouldn't be allwed to influence their children's beliefs overly. That is a whole other can of worms I'm not touching with my 40ft arrogant pole.

But specifically to answer your question, I guess parents only influence beliefs, they can't actually force you to believe something, shy of holding you down and Ludovico-ing you. In which case I'd say its the parents who are criminals against humanity, rather than the church.

[Napoleon the Clown]

So you'd agree with the statement that the dude involved in the, say, Heaven's Gate cult shouldn't have faced any sort of charges for his actions? He didn't kill those people!

[lighthorseman]

May 2, 2011 3:19:55 GMT -5 Napoleon the Clown said:

So you'd agree with the statement that the dude involved in the, say, Heaven's Gate cult shouldn't have faced any sort of charges for his actions? He didn't kill those people!

Unless he forces his followers to obey him... no. If the heaven's gaters were free to leave of their own free will at any time... then no. Not really. *wince*

Yes, Applewhite manipulated his followers, but they still chose to follow him. In that, I don't think he was materially different from any number of people, up to and including advertising agencies. Now, yes, he did use his influence to lead people to kill themselves, but they still chose to kill themselves. If he forced them to do it, then that is murder, but if they made a fully informed decision to end their own lives, I think the worst he is guilty of is assisting suicide, and whether that in itself should be a crime is a whole other kettle of fish.

"Their reason for killing themselves was crazy", I hear you think. Well... thats what right to lifers who protest euthanesia say about terminal cancer sufferers wanting to kill themselves. Personally, I am of the opinion that whether or not to end one's life is a pretty subjective and highly personal decision. What seems crazy to one person in one situation may make perfect sense to another. So just because the heaven's gate (and all the other koolaid kults out there) seem crazy to us, if they make sense to the people on the inside, who are we to tell them they're wrong? (As always, assuming fully informed, uncoerced consent)

[Oriet]

Are you saying that if a person convinces another person to do something, the convincer is not at all responsible for the convinced actions? Guess you don't believe in the charge "inciting a riot" then, and I guess people who hire assassins should get off scot free cause they didn't do the violence personally.

Oh, another point I want to make. Threats are of real or perceived violence, so threatening them with hell, if they believe in it, is just as much a threat as holding a physical knife to their throat. If it wasn't this way then you couldn't charge people for threatening with imaginary bombs or guns.

[canadian mojo]

"Conspiracy to commit murder, what kind of charge is that?"

[Smurfette Principle]

Posted this already.

[Old Viking]

The Court appears to have too much time on its hands.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Discussion has begun anew and the old topic was quite dead, so this one stays.

[Dragon Zachski]

What about a verbally abusive husband? One who tells his wife how shit she is and how much better than her he is and basically prevents her from ever leaving him, making any friends, or making any contacts? Hopeless, she commits suicide. Does this mean he's off the hook since he didn't actually kill her or physically hit her?

What about a group of bullies who mock and deride a single student relentlessly, both in and out of school, never allowing her to escape? Are they not to be considered responsible for her suicide?

For that matter, what about a bomb? The bomb is the one responsible for the death of people! Not the one who lit the fuse!

Or how about we stop shifting blame away from those who are responsible? Do you think that would be a good idea, LHM?

[lighthorseman]

May 2, 2011 11:00:10 GMT -5 Oriet said:

Are you saying that if a person convinces another person to do something, the convincer is not at all responsible for the convinced actions? Guess you don't believe in the charge "inciting a riot" then, and I guess people who hire assassins should get off scot free cause they didn't do the violence personally.

I believe the "convincer" may contribute to someone else's actions, but ultimately the person who performs the action is the one responsible. Thats not to say the "convincer" can't be held to account. I already said Applewhite, for example, could have been said to have assisted suicide.

Oh, another point I want to make. Threats are of real or perceived violence, so threatening them with hell, if they believe in it, is just as much a threat as holding a physical knife to their throat. If it wasn't this way then you couldn't charge people for threatening with imaginary bombs or guns.

I see your point... however, the Pope is telling people about an aspect of hell he believes, i.e. if you do X, you go to Hell. He didn't make that up on his own just to frighten people, he sincerely believes that. As such, what would you have him do? Lie about what he believes?