JP II -- Criminal?

[Lunar Shadow]

At this time I would like to make it known that I have neither love nor respect for the former Pope John Paul II.

I would even put forth that he actually was a criminal.

Now John Paul II was Pope for what 20+ years? Well in his time as pope he knew about the Sexual Abuse at the hands of the priests which he had control over, yet he did nothing to stop or prevent it, which means he aided and abetted these criminal acts which in itself are a crime.


The pope (who is infallible in the eyes of Catholics) also stated that Married couples in Africa could not use condoms for it would be a sin. EVEN IF say the woman in the marriage was raped before she got married and contracted the HIV virus. So rather than not having children the pope would have one MURDER their spouse by giving them HIV (I am sorry faith will not stop a virus). And it would also raise the rate of infection due to the fact that their children would also have the HIV virus. In some states it is a felony to knowingly transmit HIV to another person.


This is the legacy of the Great Pope which every one loved dearly.


John Paul II Criminal.

[Ana4Stapp]

Well, I said I never come back here and post again, but Anarkist's post is very disturbing.

I agree with you, Anarkist , not sure if we can call JP II a criminal, because the priest sexual abuses , cause it's a very hard issue to control or to prevent, but of course he could to punish the involveds in it.Sexual abuse is always a terrible thing.

But considering the other point, the HIV in Africa, this is very different, because in my opinion Church doesnt need to change, and consequently claim to the catholics things like : "use condom and go to the sex before you are married person." but Church has a clear responsability in this case.

Look, the Catholic Church has an historical important role in social issues, specially concerning to the countries in the Third World.But this is very different: A LOT of african people are dying because the HIV, this is an true epidemic.This is evident. Man, woman and the worse, children are infected.

But it's very sad when you know this thing could be avoid.

Believe me, I'm not saying Church must allow the condoms, but don't permit that married couple use this is at the least unbelievable, irresponsible and inadmissible. It's the same to condemn all these people to death.

Saying this people can't use condom because its a sin is a poor explanation. By the way, waht's a sin? Sin!!?? Sin it's people living on the streets, starving, begging...

I mean its a sin to use a condom to avoid AIDS or it's a sin to let children die in Africa???

Also, a person who uses condom doesnt mean she has not faith? No more? I'd like to understand it!


Sorry, I 'm not saying this because the religion A or B or C is wrong, and even though I'm catholic person, I can't stand this kind of thing when you have alot of innocent children losing their lives!!!








PS: I hope U can get my point.

[Lunar Shadow]

thank you for your thoughts on this issue Ana4Stapp.

now here is my question is it right or moral (pick one or both) for lets say me to infect my wife w/ HIV and then bring a child in to this world who will also be infected?(No I do not really have HIV its just an example) yes we know from the side of Catholisism that life is suffering and suffering is suposed to bring one closer to "God" but honestly isn't there enough suffering in the world already?? I mean tp willingly put that affliction on a child is evil if you'd like to use that term

belive me I am no strager to suffering I have had my hardships in live the issue that get me is the Priestophiles, I am an abuse surrvivor myself it is a fate I would not wish on anyone and yet here are "Godly Men" feeling up and poking little boys (and girls) I stand by my conclusion that JP II was a criminal for his lack of action on this issue and his statments regaurding condom useage in africa.

anyone disagree? if so why?

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist)

At this time I would like to make it known that I have neither love nor respect for the former Pope John Paul II.

I would even put forth that he actually was a criminal.

Now John Paul II was Pope for what 20+ years? Well in his time as pope he knew about the Sexual Abuse at the hands of the priests which he had control over, yet he did nothing to stop or prevent it, which means he aided and abetted these criminal acts which in itself are a crime.

Nothing to prevent it... Oh boy. You need to educate yourself. The Pope is the Leader of the Catholic Church, not all powerful. He obviously condemns it and has done thigns to try and avoid it--he can't personalyl stop every priest from commiting a crime anymroe than Bush can stop every citizen from committing a crime. Give me a break.

Quote:

The pope (who is infallible in the eyes of Catholics) also stated that Married couples in Africa could not use condoms for it would be a sin. EVEN IF say the woman in the marriage was raped before she got married and contracted the HIV virus. So rather than not having children the pope would have one MURDER their spouse by giving them HIV (I am sorry faith will not stop a virus). And it would also raise the rate of infection due to the fact that their children would also have the HIV virus. In some states it is a felony to knowingly transmit HIV to another person.

Hmm... Let's see, do condoms %100 effectivly stop the transmission of sexual diseases? NO! The ONLY way to KNOW you are not going to transmit the disease is ABSTINENCE, which is what the Pope recommended.

U.N. POPULATION CHIEF LECTURES VATICAN

Thoraya Obaid, the head of the U.N. Population Fund, admonished the Vatican today to change its teachings on condoms. Speaking of the need for the Catholic Church to endorse condom use, she said, “We are hoping the new pope will take this message further, because it makes no sense sending people to their death.” She urged the Church to adopt a “morally correct decision” on how to stop HIV.

Catholic League president William Donohue spoke to this issue:

“Is there anyone on the planet who doesn’t know about the alleged wonders of condoms? Yet, it is indisputably true that as condom use has increased, so have sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s). This is not to say that condom use causes STD’s, but it is to say that condom use has not prevented the explosion in STD’s. And this is because the same culture that prizes sexual license—in all its expressions—is morally incapable of sending a message of restraint.

“If Thoraya Obaid is truly concerned about HIV in Africa, she should get the U.N. to endorse the teachings of the Catholic Church on matters sexual. That is because the only real success story on that continent is Uganda, a nation that has tailored its anti-HIV strategy to the wisdom of Catholic sexual ethics. According to Edward C. Green, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, ‘basic behavioral changes in Uganda of 1987-95 have kept HIV prevalence declining up until now.’ The reason why the progress that has been made is now in jeopardy has more to do with dropping the emphasis on abstinence, he says, in exchange for a more condom-centered approach.

“Obaid is not only wrong on the issue, she is wrong on the cause of deaths due to AIDS. It is near impossible for anyone to die of AIDS (save for a blood transfusion) who follows the teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality. It is not the Catholic Church that is causing Africans to die—or is responsible for a new strain of HIV among homosexuals in New York City—it is behavioral recklessness.”



As usual, you really do not understand Catholicism at all.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Well, I said I never come back here and post again, but Anarkist's post is very disturbing.

You are right, it is.

Quote:

I agree with you, Anarkist , not sure if we can call JP II a criminal, because the priest sexual abuses , cause it's a very hard issue to control or to prevent, but of course he could to punish the involveds in it.Sexual abuse is always a terrible thing.

Of course. You don't think JPII did whatever he could? I'd like to see Jester fix all of the problems in the world. Oh, he can't? CRIMINAL!

Quote:

Look, the Catholic Church has an historical important role in social issues, specially concerning to the countries in the Third World.But this is very different: A LOT of african people are dying because the HIV, this is an true epidemic.This is evident. Man, woman and the worse, children are infected.

But it's very sad when you know this thing could be avoid.

You are righ,t it could be. If people followed the Church's teachings, it WOULD be.

Quote:

Believe me, I'm not saying Church must allow the condoms, but don't permit that married couple use this is at the least unbelievable, irresponsible and inadmissible. It's the same to condemn all these people to death.

No it isn't. The Church is not saying "You must have Sex but you can't protect yourself." The Church proescribes abstinence, which, by the way, is the only way to be sure you are not goign to contract a sexually trasnmitted disease.

Quote:

Saying this people can't use condom because its a sin is a poor explanation. By the way, waht's a sin? Sin!!?? Sin it's people living on the streets, starving, begging...

A sin is breaking God's law. It is the recklessness and unaccountabiltiy of the current population which causes such things as people living on the streets begging. Not the moral disciplines of the Church, which, if followed by everyone would get those people off the streets.

Quote:

I mean its a sin to use a condom to avoid AIDS or it's a sin to let children die in Africa???

Yes it is a sin to use a condom. There are not only other ways of avoiding AIDS but BETTER ways.

Quote:

Also, a person who uses condom doesnt mean she has not faith? No more? I'd like to understand it!

Depends on what you mean. Does someone who murders have no Faith? Not necessarily. You can have all the Faith in the world, but as the Bible says, and the Church teaches, "Faith with works is dead".

Quote:

Sorry, I 'm not saying this because the religion A or B or C is wrong, and even though I'm catholic person, I can't stand this kind of thing when you have alot of innocent children losing their lives!!!

If you can't stand children losing their lives, why do you endorse the secular view which causes it?

Quote:

PS: I hope U can get my point.

I liek the reference but I simply cannot understand your point of view.

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Anarkist)

thank you for your thoughts on this issue Ana4Stapp.

now here is my question is it right or moral (pick one or both) for lets say me to infect my wife w/ HIV and then bring a child in to this world who will also be infected?(No I do not really have HIV its just an example) yes we know from the side of Catholisism that life is suffering and suffering is suposed to bring one closer to "God" but honestly isn't there enough suffering in the world already?? I mean tp willingly put that affliction on a child is evil if you'd like to use that term

Or you could guaruntee you won't transmit any diseases by abstaining, AND get one of those poor children off the streets by adopting them!

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote:

Of course. You don't think JPII did whatever he could? I'd like to see Jester fix all of the problems in the world. Oh, he can't? CRIMINAL!

The Pope could at least punish the abusers!And I dont recall saying JP II was a criminal.I didnt say that.

Quote:

You are righ,t it could be. If people followed the Church's teachings, it WOULD be.

If the Church gives orientation instead of claim condom it's a sin.Actually you
can teach something to a person giving her only orientation, not only forbiding things to her. It's not teaching.

Quote:

No it isn't. The Church is not saying "You must have Sex but you can't protect yourself." The Church proescribes abstinence, which, by the way, is the only way to be sure you are not goign to contract a sexually trasnmitted disease.

Abstinence? We are in the 21 century!Let's face it!

Quote:

A sin is breaking God's law. It is the recklessness and unaccountabiltiy of the current population which causes such things as people living on the streets begging. Not the moral disciplines of the Church, which, if followed by everyone would get those people off the streets.

But it's definitely a sin. Of course Church is not the only one part responsible for it. In true all of us are.

Quote:

Yes it is a sin to use a condom. There are not only other ways of avoiding AIDS but BETTER ways.

What are they? Tell me!

Quote:

Depends on what you mean. Does someone who murders have no Faith? Not necessarily. You can have all the Faith in the world, but as the Bible says, and the Church teaches, "Faith with works is dead

".

You cant compare a person who uses a condom to another who is a murderer.

Quote:

If you can't stand children losing their lives, why do you endorse the secular view which causes it?

Actually, I'm endorsing the right to the people to live. Im not insulting Church or the catholic people. I only think Church needs to a better job in the poor countries, specially in Africa. I mean Catholic Church and of course all the other religions have to open their eyes to this catastrophe caused by AIDS.

Quote:

liek the reference but I simply cannot understand your point of view.

[ I knew you'd get it!
Well, this is my point of view. I'm so sorry you can't understand it! Really!

[uncertaindrumer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

The Pope could at least punish the abusers!And I dont recall saying JP II was a criminal.I didnt say that.

You don't think the offenders have been punished? Give me a break.

Quote:

If the Church gives orientation instead of claim condom it's a sin.Actually you
can teach something to a person giving her only orientation, not only forbiding things to her. It's not teaching.

Uh... I didn't catch that.

Quote:

Abstinence? We are in the 21 century!Let's face it!

That is the most moral relatavist thing I have ever heard anyone say. Just because it is the 21st century we have a right to act like reckless spoiled lustful hooligans? That is ridiculous.

Quote:

But it's definitely a sin. Of course Church is not the only one part responsible for it. In true all of us are.

How is the Church responsible for poor children? The Church has done qutie a bit for people in all third world countries. You can't expect the Church to fix every problem inthe world.

Quote:

What are they? Tell me!

Abstaining.



".

Quote:

You cant compare a person who uses a condom to another who is a murderer.

No? Obviously Murder is a more grievous sin but the principle is the same--you can have a whoel ton o Faith in God and still kill people. You can have a whole ton of faith in God and still use condoms.

Quote:

Actually, I'm endorsing the right to the people to live. Im not insulting Church or the catholic people. I only think Church needs to a better job in the poor countries, specially in Africa. I mean Catholic Church and of course all the other religions have to open their eyes to this catastrophe caused by AIDS.

It is indeed a catastrohpe. Did you even READ my post? The ONLY country where AIDS has NOT grown over the years is a country where ABSTINENCE, not CONDOMS have been the main force behind prevention. None of the countries who have rampant condom use are lowering their AIDS problem, so your argument, and everyone's argument, is absurd--if condoms were doing the trick, we would be in a practically AIDS free world. Trying to blame it on the Catholic Church is a nice way of saying "Well my way is obviously not working--but since it gives me an easy lifestyle in which I can act recklessly and not worry about it, I need to find someone to blame".











[ I knew you'd get it!
Well, this is my point of view. I'm so sorry you can't understand it! Really![/quote]

[Ana4Stapp]

[quote=uncertaindrumer]

Quote:

That is the most moral relatavist thing I have ever heard anyone say. Just because it is the 21st century we have a right to act like reckless spoiled lustful hooligans? That is ridiculous.

Well, I was trying to say that we are in the 21 century, so we have to face that it brings new problems, like AIDS (I know it's started in last century, but it' still a big problem), like sex been exposed all the time...
I'm not saying that in the 21 century we can do everything we want , having sex without responsability, allowing abortion or murder...
We have to try, in my opinion, at least to find solutions to these big problems we have in the 21 century.And Church really can helps it, not forbiding things but teaching and orienting the people.

I hope you can understand me.

By the way I thought you knew me.

[rabidgopher04]

If you don't want AIDS don't have sex.

Besides, individual people make choices all the time. Even if condoms were approved by the Church it doesn't mean that people will always use them. Whose fault will it be then?

[creedsister]

Quote: (Originally Posted by rabidgopher04)

If you don't want AIDS don't have sex.

Besides, individual people make choices all the time. Even if condoms were approved by the Church it doesn't mean that people will always use them. Whose fault will it be then?

its a waste of time really but i for one think that the baby boomers and the teen preagnecy rate is freaking out of control hey if someone gets pregeneat it happens but we got young girls who are taking advantage of it Wic medicade b/c they know the state will take care of it its out of control..if i was president i would start passing the china law of 1 child per house hold ...and when you really think about this is not in the 19;50,s these are the end of days who would wanna bring one more children in this world unless they live in a doll house world , in a bubble WOE unto those who are with sucklings in those days .... i can get in to politics from time to time KING X XTERMINATIOR Back Me we dont need no more crying babys in the world with parents that does even have license to drive yet.. we have got system in middle America You Lay Down Open Up You Pop out ...straight to the wick line

[justin-time]

drummer, you too have noticed by now that blind atheists can't read anything that doesn't suit their fantasies.

anarkist

Quote:

Now John Paul II was Pope for what 20+ years? Well in his time as pope he knew about the Sexual Abuse at the hands of the priests which he had control over, yet he did nothing to stop or prevent it, which means he aided and abetted these criminal acts which in itself are a crime.

Any normal human being was disgusted by such behavior, especially the Pope and the other 99.99% of good priests.

First of all, the pope has no control over priests who disregard Catholic teaching with sick perverted behavior. He is not a dictator nor is he a policeman. Those who ascribe such attributes to the Pope are ignorant paranoid bigots.

Second, the Pope does not have super-psychic omniscient powers where he automatically knows the evil actions of each sick priest and jump on a jet and beat the crap out the bad priests with his crozier. That seems what you expect. It is not Catholics that elevate the Pope to a kind of god, it is his enemies.

Third, the Pope publically and repeatedly denounced the actions of these sick perverts as an evil. But that did not make international headlines.

Fourth, the incident rate for sex scandals among Protestant ministers is actually higher than it is for Catholic priests.

Fifth, school teachers are 100 X more likely to commit sex offenses against school children than priests, which reveals the hypocrisy of the media. You just don’t hear much about that either.

Sixth, to say the Pope did nothing about the scandals is a big fat lie, and there is copious amounts of evidence of what he did do. Show me the evidence of what Protestantism does. They have no centrality. They gave no way of doing their dirty laundry. We have. The Pope did what he could, and he did it effectively. It’s been three years since the Boston scandals. Is that all you got is dead horses to make a stink with?

Seventh, the media has, and is, running an orchestrated attack on the Catholic Church. They are following your buddy Geobbles.

The results of national surveys taken by Christian Ministry Resources in 2002: The Christian Science Monitor summed up the surveys’ conclusion as follows: ‘Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant….’

The Christian Science Monitor is NOT a Catholic publication. Go make inflammatory bigoted remarks to Protestants.

[justin-time]

Come on, anarkist, have the courage to just come out and say your a follower of Nietzche. It shows in almost every post you make. See the Batman movie. You'll love it more than I did. It's loaded with Nietzche philosophy. ...you are defined by what you do...

Hey, you had an accident, and are laid up. Too bad you are useless. Just take your free goverment death pill and have a nice day Heil the Fourth Riech!!!





Those who supported slavery were free
Those who support abortion are alive
They are not really human...We have heard that before!

[justin-time]

ANTI-POPE AD WITHDRAWN AFTER LEAGUE PROTEST

In early December, AmFAR, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, released several new ads, one of which read, "IF THE POPE HAD AIDS, HE'D NEED MORE THAN JUST YOUR PRAYERS." The ad was scheduled for display on the sides of city buses and other public places in the New York metropolitan area before possibly going nationwide.

The ad drew immediate fire from the Catholic League. The following statement was released to the media on December 5:

"Instead of blaming the Pope, AmFAR should instead congratulate the Holy Father for promoting restraint. Indeed, if everyone followed the Pope's teachings, AmFAR wouldn't exist. It is an elementary truism that if lethal sex acts and drug use were curtailed, so, too, would AIDS. Yet that message is not something that AmFAR has been known to disseminate.

"No private sector institution has done more to service AIDS patients than the Catholic Church: it does more to alleviate the suffering of those with AIDS than all the activist organizations combined.

"Some people's idea of helping AIDS patients is distributing red ribbons, others choose to blame innocents for the disease, and not a few choose to campaign for more research. The Catholic Church prefers to offer sound advice about the consequences of promiscuity while simultaneously caring for those with full-blown AIDS. That is why it is unique and that is why the Pope is deserving of AmFAR's emulation, not disdain."

Shortly after the Catholic League mounted its protest, which was joined by the Archdiocese of New York, the offensive ad was withdrawn. AmFAR, an AIDS activist organization associated with Elizabeth Taylor, publicly stated that it was pulling its anti-Pope ad because it did not want to interfere with its larger message.

Volume 23, Number 1
January-February 1996
http://www.catholicleague.org/ <<anarkist, thats called posting your source

[justin-time]

We have already had several decades of the sexual revolution, contraception and legalized abortion. During the same period the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions has skyrocketed.

If society adhered to the very Judeo-Christian morality that these critics abhor, can anyone deny that these problems would improve dramatically?

Many might be tempted to think of the pro-population control, pro-abortion advocates as having new and insightful ideas that could improve the lot of humanity, but these ideas are old and becoming quite tiresome.

Nazi Germany imposed coercive contraception on the Jews, poles, and other East European Catholic ethnic groups. On its heels came legalized abortion in the Third Reich.

Contraception and abortion were seen as a way of limiting the number of those "less desirable" in society, which ended up being any "enemy" of the state.

In modern America, take a moment to see exactly which groups are the targets of contraception programs. Do the research and see who has the majority of abortions today.

The results would surely (hopefully?) startle these progressive thinkers. The majority of those targeted for contraception and abortion are African Americans, Hispanics, and members of other ethnic minorities.

This sounds awfully similar to the planned elimination of those deemed less desirable by Hitler. But it's not a point one brings up in polite (read "politically correct") company in 2003 America.

Medical missionaries report first hand the effects of the contraceptive imperialism the USA imposes on the third world. It costs pennies to effectively treat many of the diseases from which Haitians suffer.
But when a Haitian mother brings a dying child to a government clinic for a couple cents worth of antibiotics or antimalarial medications necessary to save his life, there are few or none available on the shelves.
But there are millions of dollars worth of contraceptives available in Haiti.
Or when a Kenyan woman goes to a hospital with an infected uterus due to the IUD some doctor implanted without her knowledge after her last delivery, she may die due to lack of a clean, well equipped operating room.
But if she desires a tubal ligation, she can be immediately escorted into a new, clean, well equipped operating room stocked only for that purpose by kind, compassionate population controllers in the West.
And the church hospitals are left trying to pick up the pieces. Those who do missionary work in the third world have personally seen cases like these happening with increasing frequency. Is this the type of compassion for which we want America to be known?
Of course, we justify the need for our contraceptive imperialism by pointing out the "overpopulation" of the developing countries. Let's examine the concept of poverty versus overpopulation.
Poverty can be defined as too many people for the resources available in a geographic region. When we see humans living in poverty, we feel a certain solidarity with them. Our consciences tell us of our duty to help them out of their misery with food, shelter, infrastructure, and the means to develop their economy.
Remember. Verbal engineering always precedes social engineering. By calling poverty by a new name, "overpopulation," we remove the burden for their condition from our conscience.
No longer do we feel the need to feed them. We now can say, "It's your fault. If you'd just stop making babies, you wouldn't be living in poverty." Instead of corn meal, we ship them condoms. Instead of antibiotics, we send them IUDs. We feel morally superior for our great act of compassion, while they continue starving and dying.
We're also destroying their societal structures. Haitian families often have eight children or more. Their infant mortality rate is so high, only 50% survive to age five.
Still more perish before age 15. A couple starting with eight children can expect only two to three to survive to adulthood. These parents rely on their children to provide for them in their old age. In Haiti there is no social security check.
They have very little food, clean water, few jobs, little hope. By imposing our contraceptive imperialism on them, we are taking away their families, the only comfort they have left. Can we see how truly sinister this is?
In America we can provide enough food to feed the entire world population. Yes, the entire world! The problem is lack of distribution of available resources, not "overpopulation."
But our government pays our farmers not to farm their fields to keep the price of grains up on the world market. Meanwhile Haitians an hour and a half flight from our shores starve to death and die of diseases we eradicated here decades ago.
Chemical "contraceptives" and abortion drugs such as RU486 are advanced as a panacea for the world's ills. Few comprehend that the birth control pill, Norplant, and DepoProvera injections ALL allow breakthrough ovulation from 10 to 50% or more of a woman's cycle.
When this occurs, they spontaneously abort a fertilized egg by preventing its implantation in the altered uterine lining formed under the influence of these hormonal medications.
They are therefore abortifacient in nature, not contraceptive, at least part of the time. They are strictly abortifacient when used as morning after combinations because conception has already occurred. Once the egg has been fertilized, a growing human being is being killed, regardless if there are only one cell or a million present.
The lists of life threatening complications from these chemicals in the Physicians Desk Reference make one wonder why any woman would voluntarily allow her health to be threatened by these products.
The dangers of these medications are so well known that the federal Food and Drug Administration assigns them to a class of medications that protects physicians who prescribe them from litigation arising from possible complications.