Pope Benedict accused of masterminding Catholic Church sex abuse cover-up

Thanks to Carroll09 for the post on Vatican II. I stand corrected. I must check out that book you mentioned – probably available in the Dublin Veritas bookshop.

Just one final comment on this discussion, which just might provide food for thought for all those contributing posts; MATTHEW 7:15-20 (enough said) - Barneyjo

My previous post is in reply to Carroll09)

You may deny the Bayside messages but you cannot honestly deny the photographic evidence of an impostor Pope so lightly, or the voice analysis evidence so lightly with a clear and honest conscience. And in relation to Bishop Mugavero how could he with an honest and clear conscience dismiss the Bayside messages, when he didn't even read them.And as far as I know there is nothing in the Bayside messages that is contrary to the true teachings of the Catholic Church and since you claim there is, I would welcome reading about them in a reply post!

2BorNot2B- Re. where is the outrage towards psychiatrists...as we saw in the aftermath of the Murphy Report in Ireland, it was perfectly acceptable for psychiatrists, social-workers, lawyers, gardai, etc. to claim that they were on a "learning curve" with regard to sexual abuse.I have heard social-workers claiming that the issue of abuse never came up during training- maybe it didn't; it probably didn't come up in the seminaries either.Yet priests and bishops apparently should have known better than these supposed experts.Now,no one is claiming that those guilty of abuse or coverup should be excused-a crime is a crime,but if we were to see the scale of compliance with abuse in "secular" society as well as among clerics,we would be shocked beyond words.In Ireland (and elsewhere) at the moment it is very clear that no one is doing more than the Catholic Church to ensure the safety of children-there are several dioceses now which experts acknowledge have child-protection policies which far exceed the state's own guidelines.

Vincentruane-the supposed mountain of evidence has its roots in the Bayside "prophesies" and is fuelled by them- the conspiracy theory is driven by Bayside (supposedly under Mary's direction) -according to canon law,the bishop can make a declaration if messages are contrary to faith and morals or if (as is the case of Bayside) they instil doubts in the minds of the faithful (c.f.Bishop Mugavero's decree).Can.212 also says that the faithful are to obey the bishop in such matters.Also the quotes by Jacinta regarding a pope weeping etc. could apply to the current Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.

Kudos as well to Efmc4429 -- Shouldn't someone bring up the fact that priests were sent to psychiatrists to be 're-generated' and these shrinks gave those priests a clean bill of heald and sent them back to the bishop having declared them 'cured.' -- Shouldn't these Quacks be sued by both Church and abused for letting mentally sick and unreformed men out? -- Where is the outrage at them?

So many exausting tangents from the core issue here (?) I agree with Irishathen's brief comment that the current Pope (quote) "definetly instigated a cover-up" and in closing "Whilst speaking to victims in Malta this past week-end he had tears in his eyes. Is he a great actor or is he starting to feel contrition?" am only prayerful that the real Cardinal Ratinzer has not been drugged by The Mason's Theatrical Dept languishing in a cell someplace in The Vatican, and a look-a-like on The Throne of Peter as per Vincentruane's peculiar conspiracy theories. One indeed hopes that the man in Malta was indeed The Pope close to contrition--from the heart. Lex Dei In Corde Meo. Slainte.

Well said katieherk! The Catholic Church cleaned up its act some 8 years ago. This scandals are being dredged from half a century ago by people who want to expell the Church from the public square because it is the last obstacle to total secularization pushed for by statists, militant atheists, homophiles and pro-aborts; not to mention the constant needling of anti-Catholic evangelical bigots who'd like nothing more than to see the Church embarrased and defeated.

Jacersisity... -- Actually in the earliest days of the Christian Church there weren't buildings that even resembled the present churches, much less altar rails. Christians assembled in private households to celebrate the Eucharist and these surely had no rail. It wasn't until the Church was freed from persecution and out of the shadows of the catacombs that church buildings began to be constructed. As for the silly argument about the altar rails, it has much more to do with the intransigence of modern-day Latin Rite fanatics than with the actual act of worship as prescribed anywhere in the bible. Surely, it would be better to instill a greater sense of reverence in people receiving Communion, but that comes from UNDERSTANDING CLEARLY "WHO" IT IS THAT IS BEING RECEIVED, rather than with any architectural structure that holds people back some arbitrary distance from the altar. That sounds a bit Pharisaical in the sense of having to 'obey the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law.-- One can be equally reverent by simply genuflecting deeply before receiving Jesus, and then keeping a prayerful stance afterward, than by kneeling at the rail totally ignorant of import of the moment. -- Further, what is even more shocking is the ignorance of people who approach the altar with chewing gum in their mouth, without having gone to reconciliation previous to receiving, and dressed immodestly, as though they are going to the beach in low cut T shirts, shorts and flip-flops. -- In that sense, I think the clergy have done a horrible job of instructing the people.

On Southernprides’ comment: I trust in Jesus’ enabling, nothing more. His enabling of Love is more massive than you would ever imagine. Go find it. It’s got peace of soul, mind and body in it. Go find, there’s a tabernacle close to you. Privacy ensured.

In reply to CARROLO9-There is a mountain of evidence to support the fact that the free masons drugged the real Pope Paul VI and placed an Italian actor on the seat of Saint Peter from about 1973 to 1978 even if Bayside never existed. And as for Bishop Mugavero he did not investigate the Bayside messages, yes he had a letter sent to every Church condemning these messages, but he did not investigate them, and as far as I know there is a special Canon Law in the Catholic Church that deals with supposedly new claimed apparitions which Bishop Mugavero ignored. So why did he ignore the Canon laws of his own Church? Leave Bayside out of it and there is still overwhelming evidence there, that the free- masons drugged the real Pope Paul VI and planted an impostor Pope on the seat of Saint Peter. The final aim here is to have a Pope who will agree to a one world religion where the true Catholic Church will not even be recognizable, However some Franciscans have a saying 'Man makes his plans and then God laughs.'

Quite so. However history teaches that from time to time, God can select the most curious and unlikely messengers!!!!! - Barney Jo

Southernpride quotes from times gone by and good riddance to those times, I say. Every human being is a creature of God, given the gift of life and deserves to live, not be executed. That is why the majority of civilised states and people around the world have got rid of executions. Everyone has a right to atone, be genuinely sorry and repatriated back into God’s real purpose for human existence before they meet the supreme maker of theirs and our very existence. No one except God has the supreme choice. And do you know what? He’s very forgiving, so long as you repent. Richard Dawkins, and his harebrained followers and sucked-in people might please take note.

Jacersisityourself- thanks for your gracious response to my post.If you study the documents of Vatican 2,there is not one sentence that ordered the removal of altar rails-NOT ONE!Latin was also to be preserved-there was the POSSIBILITY of celebrating Mass in the vernacular,but nothing implies that it was to be the norm.The suggestion that the altar should be placed away from the wall-again to allow the POSSIBILITY of Mass facing the people- applied only to new churches;no existing beautiful high altars or altar-rails were to be smashed!Why did all this happen despite the intentions of the Council Fathers?Perhaps one reason is that hand in hand with this "spirit of Vatican 2" was a desire among some priests to get "with it" or to be more "worldly".Also,a number of translations into English were extremely deficient-omitting the odd word here & there greatly changed the meaning of some texts.It's amazing how similar many of these post-Vatican 2 "innovations" are to what the Protestant "reformers" did 500 years before.I suggest you read "The Catholic Sanctuary & the Second Vatican Council" by Michael Davies (an excellent short book of about 30 pages, published by TAN Books) or his longer version "Pope Paul's New Mass".