Media Headlines Pope apologises for priests 'unspeakable crimes.

binbag · Post by **binbag** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 6:43 am

Media Headlines "Pope apologises for priests 'unspeakable crimes".

"Did" the Pope, as the media headlines claim, apologise for the horrific child abuse that took place within the Roman Catholic church for many many years, ?

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:13 am

This is what the BBC reported

BBC News - Papal visit: Pope expresses his 'deep sorrow' for abuse

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 9:17 am

binbag;1333564 wrote: Media Headlines "Pope apologises for priests 'unspeakable crimes".

"Did" the Pope, as the media headlines claim, apologise for the horrific child abuse that took place within the Roman Catholic church for many many years, ?

does it really matter to the kids who were abused?

Just because he is the Pope means nothing.

binbag · Post by **binbag** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:18 pm

Bez;1333582 wrote: This is what the BBC reported

BBC News - Papal visit: Pope expresses his 'deep sorrow' for abuseYes, Bez. "He expressed his deep sorrow for the unspeakable crimes; that's what I read and heard also, but expressing deep sorrow is not actually saying "sorry". I haven't as yet picked up the word "sorry".

Did he actually say "sorry"?

It would be advantageous to him and for his church if he did.

Odie;1333587 wrote: does it really matter to the kids who were abused?

Just because he is the Pope means nothing.Odie, all the news coverage and interviews with the victims, indicate "sorry" means nothing to them.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:21 pm

binbag;1333610 wrote: Yes, Bez. "He expressed his deep sorrow for the unspeakable crimes; that's what I read and heard also, but expressing deep sorrow is not actually saying "sorry". I haven't as yet picked up the word "sorry".

Did he actually say "sorry"?

It would be advantageous to him and for his church if he did.

Odie, all the news coverage and interviews with the victims, indicate "sorry" means nothing to them.

Why would it? to me, even sorry from the actual priest that did it, wouldn't mean squat to me.

no different than one who murders and later apologizes to family.:rolleyes:

binbag · Post by **binbag** » Sat Sep 18, 2010 5:21 pm

Odie;1333611 wrote: Why would it? to me, even sorry from the actual priest that did it, wouldn't mean squat to me.

no different than one who murders and later apologizes to family.:rolleyes:Absolutely agree with you Odie.

Pope Benedict XVI has expressed his "deep sorrow" for the "unspeakable crimes" of child abuse within the Catholic Church[end quote]

The strongest public apology yet over the scandal was offered during a Mass at Westminster Cathedral on the London leg of his four-day state visit.[end quote]

I disagree; That is not an apology, neither is it saying sorry, and by him not saying sorry (and I still don't know if he has) people will say it speaks volumes.

I'm not attacking the man, I'm just hoping he did say sorry, for the sake of others.... not the abused.

As we both agree, saying sorry, means nothing to the poor victims.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 2:59 pm

The only way he can effectively say "sorry" is to put processes in place that make it as unlikely as possible for a priest to commit these "unspeakable crimes" and impossible for him to repeat it should he do so.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 6:26 pm

That's strange I thought his apology was not to those afflicted but to all catholics. Read the dialogue of his speech Because I remember myself and others laughing about how you can apologise but not apologise in one sentence.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 8:49 pm

[QUOTE=binbag;1333630]Absolutely agree with you Odie.

Pope Benedict XVI has expressed his "deep sorrow" for the "unspeakable crimes" of child abuse within the Catholic Church[end quote]

The strongest public apology yet over the scandal was offered during a Mass at Westminster Cathedral on the London leg of his four-day state visit.[end quote]

I disagree; That is not an apology, neither is it saying sorry, and by him not saying sorry (and I still don't know if he has) people will say it speaks volumes.

I'm not attacking the man, I'm just hoping he did say sorry, for the sake of others.... not the abused.

As we both agree, saying sorry, means nothing to the poor victims.

He has no choice but to say he's sorry, its what high powered people have to do.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Sep 19, 2010 9:36 pm

I have a brother who unlike myself Is deeply religious. We were raised as Church Of England but In adult-hood he turned to Catholicism from his own choice and his young son attends a private Catholic school.

Maybe I am old fashioned as I wrote last night on a thread about our Queen. I happen to think that we should show some respect for our Monarchy and our heads of religion.

Concerning the abuse scandal, these crimes carried out by Priests happened many many years ago, long before Joseph Alois Ratzinger was Inaugurated In April 2005.

He Is not responsible. The Priests who carried out the abuse are responsible along with those who covered up the abuse but this Pope was not Pope when the abuse took place nor Is It his sole doing that there was a cover up In places In the Catholic religion.

Why should he be expected to apologise for some-thing that he had nothing to do with and was most likely un-aware of the cover up?

It Is no different than saying a Chief of Police today Is responsible for the mistakes made by the police force In failing to bring Jack the Ripper to Justice.

What else Is the Pope supposed to do? He has at the very least shown an acknowledgment of the abuse and made a public apology. Dissecting his every word Is pedantic to say the least.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:24 am

Bryn Mawr;1333801 wrote: The only way he can effectively say "sorry" is to put processes in place that make it as unlikely as possible for a priest to commit these "unspeakable crimes" and impossible for him to repeat it should he do so.

I believe the current Pope has been pivotal in developing processes in place to deal with the 'crimes' that you speak of Bryn.

I found this informative (and not too long) .... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html

I'm sure there are many more articles on the internet but I was pressed for time on this occasion.

Bez · Post by **Bez** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 6:25 am

oscar;1333881 wrote: I have a brother who unlike myself Is deeply religious. We were raised as Church Of England but In adult-hood he turned to Catholicism from his own choice and his young son attends a private Catholic school.

Maybe I am old fashioned as I wrote last night on a thread about our Queen. I happen to think that we should show some respect for our Monarchy and our heads of religion.

Concerning the abuse scandal, these crimes carried out by Priests happened many many years ago, long before Joseph Alois Ratzinger was Inaugurated In April 2005.

He Is not responsible. The Priests who carried out the abuse are responsible along with those who covered up the abuse but this Pope was not Pope when the abuse took place nor Is It his sole doing that there was a cover up In places In the Catholic religion.

Why should he be expected to apologise for some-thing that he had nothing to do with and was most likely un-aware of the cover up?

It Is no different than saying a Chief of Police today Is responsible for the mistakes made by the police force In failing to bring Jack the Ripper to Justice.

What else Is the Pope supposed to do? He has at the very least shown an acknowledgment of the abuse and made a public apology. Dissecting his every word Is pedantic to say the least.

I agree Oscar

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:27 am

Bez;1333905 wrote: I believe the current Pope has been pivotal in developing processes in place to deal with the 'crimes' that you speak of Bryn.

I found this informative (and not too long) .... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html

I'm sure there are many more articles on the internet but I was pressed for time on this occasion.

If true then it's a good start.

I note, however, that the author of the article "is the senior correspondent for The National Catholic Reporter" and I think I'll look for corroborative evidence before accepting it as gospel.