Degenerate “socialists” welcome the Pope

August 9, 2010 at 12:41 am (Catholicism, Champagne Charlie, child abuse, Christianity, grovelling, relativism, religion)

It’s come to this in degenerate, ex-’Marxist’ circles, where they don’t care about, or excuse away, child abuse, misogyny, homophobia and opposition birth control. These  grovelling  traitors to socialism and secularism even refer to “ his Holiness Benedict XVI”; read what the loathsome Socialist Unity blog has to say about the forthcoming visit (at taxpayers’ expense) of that enemy of humanity, Pope Benedict XVI: 

POPE WELCOME HERE

Filed under: religion — Andy Newman @ 9:00 am

The forthcoming official state visit to Britain by his Holiness Benedict XVI, is less than a month away. It will be an event of enormous significance for Roman Catholics in Britain, and as the Daily Telegraph correctly observes:

“If Benedict XVI is greeted with hostility and manufactured scandals, then British Christianity as a whole will be weakened. And, in the eyes of hundreds of millions of Catholics around the world, our national reputation will be damaged. The Pope’s visit is more than a great event for Catholics: it is a test of Britain’s professionalism, hospitality, tolerance and maturity. “

There is still a deep well of anti-Catholic prejudice, and sub-conscious “bash the Pope” feeling in Britain, that is now boosted by a strident and self-serving “secularism”. Christianity is still a major cultural and social force, and its representatives are worthy of respect. This is entirely necessary if we are to continue to develop and defend our inclusive multi-cultural society. We must show mutual respect and tolerance to those of all faiths and none, and explore ways that people of all races, creeds, lifestyle choices and sexual orientations can muddle along together.

The blog Catholic Culture, makes an interesting observation:

An Episcopalian bishop has been restored to authority in the Diocese of Pennsylvania, despite an earlier suspension for his gross mishandling of sex-abuse complaints. An ecclesiastical tribunal found that the bishop could not be deposed for his misconduct, because it occurred 35 years ago and the statute of limitations had tolled.

There was absolutely no media scandal or newspaper coverage, because child-abuse by non-Catholics is regarded as a non story. The scandal of child sexual abuse is not restricted to the Roman church, and the vast majority of Roman Catholic clergy are good, honest men who would never have acted in such a way, or colluded with it.

There is a danger that a toxic cocktail of anti-Popery and brittle atheist intolerance may yet overshadow the visit, which would be a terrible blow to liberalism and multi-culturalism. Yet self-publicists and simpletons are running a campaign based upon misinformation about Benedict XVI. For example, Peter Tatchell has launched a petition against the state visit. Tatchell says:

“Amazingly, there is not a word in the government’s response [to the anti-Catholic petition] about the child sex abuse scandal and the Pope’s role in its cover up.”

Mr Tatchell urged people who did not agree with the visit to join the Protest the Pope coalition, which he said would be holding a large demonstration in London on Saturday September 18th, during the visit.

He is currently filming a Channel 4 documentary about the Pope which he said would be screened before or during the trip.

As Jack Valero, (from Guardian CiF) clearly explained about the child sex scandals, and how since taking office, Benedict XVI has done far more than John Paul II to address this scandal.

But wasn’t Ratzinger in charge while all this was going on? Didn’t it happen on his watch? No. From 1981 to 2001 he was in charge of a department that dealt with defrocking, but not with suspensions and penalties for paedophile priests, which were the responsibility of local bishops. A number of bishops failed to suspend the abusive priests, some of whom continued to abuse. That is the scandal. It has been exposed and dealt with, and a number of bishops have, as a result, resigned. More important, guidelines are now in place to prevent it ever happening again.

Not only was Cardinal Ratzinger not complicit in these failures, he was the Vatican official who most clearly saw what was needed to tackle the problem. Then, in 2001, Pope John Paul asked him to review the local churches’ handling of clerical abuse cases. Cardinal Ratzinger asked bishops around the world to forward to him all cases where credible allegations had been made against priests.

He did this not to “cover up” the crimes – which had been reported to the local police – but to ensure that the priests were more speedily dealt with. He accomplished this by amending the procedure for defrocking to allow for a fast-track procedure that did not involve trials.

Some try to make out that Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2001 letter orders a cover-up by insisting that parties observe secrecy under pain of excommunication. What it actually says is that confidentiality should be observed during church trials, to allow the victims to give evidence freely and to protect the accused until found guilty. There is nothing in that letter preventing victims reporting the case to the police, and the assumption is that they should.

Pope Benedict is not responsible for cover-up, collusion, turning a blind eye, institutional idolatry or any of the other accusations that, with greater or lesser vehemence, have been hurled at the Catholic church during recent weeks. On the contrary, he is the one in the Vatican who has done most to rid the church of this scourge. He is the one who has acted most consistently and energetically to improve the church’s handling of these cases…

…grovels ‘Cardinal’ Numan.

But there is hope, even at ‘Socialist Unity’:

“I think you are very confused, Andy.

“Liberalism does not require that you “respect” beliefs you consider to be false. Only that you tolerate them.

“Also, I know that free speech is not something you value very highly (given what you write about Cuba, China and Iran) but it is an essential part of our political tradition. For a figure as divisive and controversial as the pope to arrive without vocal opposition would reflect poorly on us as a liberal society.

“Anyway…you might just have convinced me to turn up at one of the anti-pope demos, so well done!

Comment by Alex — 8 August, 2010 @ 10:14 am“

* So be on the left side: protest the Pope: http://www.protest-the-pope.org.uk/