Vatican Scandals Don't Die With The Pope

Harsh words indeed. It's interesting that PJPII was brought in by the P2 Freemasons to help cover Marcinkus and the Vatican Bank. God's Banker, Roberto Calvi, was "suicided" under London's Blackfriars bridge. I am told that the Calvis had connections to the Comrie Empire, and that Calvi's son was hiding out on a ranch near Edmonton. This all relates to Pope Lucian's claim that the "smoke of satan has entered the church". However, I doubt that the Pope was as much of an enabler as Xymphora suggests.

Proof? Come on guys, you'll have to do a lot more to convince us. Links please, thank you.

I mean more links, sorry. I wouldn't necessariy call him disrespectful of women. Perhaps just very socially conservative. What you see as a conspiracy is perhaps just his personal belief.

Pope Paul II also railed against both communism and the excesses of capitalism.

He was just a guy who ran a business.Like most religous leaders,he was just a piece of shit.

Well, you might disagree with him, but I would hardly call a guy who travelled around the world while sick and one who forgave a guy who shot him 3 times and tried to kill him a piece of shit.

All political organizations and institutions are guilty by their very nature..............

It seems pretty obvious from this article that the culture war is becoming more vicious. To claim that the Holy Father was involved in conspiracy and deceit is equivalent to the abuse Jesus suffered from for his "conspiracy and deceit."

Face the facts, Holy and wise people who seek to spread freedom and human liberty scare you, because you are also afraid of what comes to you when fail to seek truth and fail to look at the need of redemption for your sins.

All popes are human beings with human faults and the holy father thing is an appellation given to him by other human beings. As such to put forth an argument that this particular human being could not be involved in things stated in the article is a nonstarter (I personally don't believe he was involved in a conspiracy but was just someone elected because he was known to hold conservative beliefs about church teachings by other who perhaps murdered the previous pope).

To the person above who wanted proof or more links, the article gave you a book title to read; that should keep you busy and while I haven't read it I'm sure there are a lot of leads for more investigations in it.

One thing we do know about for sure though is PJPII's total silence on the abuse of children by Catholic priests and his refusal to deal with the Catholic Church as a hiding place for homosexuals in denial. Also, these stories going around about how PJPII brought down communism (was 50% responsible by one account) even if partially true are completely overshadowed by failure to truly stand up for the poor and dispossessed. If he (or any other pope for that matter) was truly a man of faith, he should have divested the church of the fortune it is sitting on, distributed it to the above-mentioned poor, and lived without worry like the birds of the air, as Jesus taught who he was supposed to be the representative of on earth.

But he did rail against capitalism as well. He's a politician, of course he won't talk about homosexuality in the church in public.

Amen!

Oh please.

Just the fact that so many of the 'diddlers' did receive protection from 'above' says it all. The article tells it like it is! Not to mention, all religions are a sham! Read any bible, koran, kabbalah, or Tibetan Book of the dead, or even the satanic bible for that matter, and you`ll find that these man made texts simply do not answer all the questions to the universe! We simply don`t know who or what God is, or if there are many Gods, or if there are none. Are there strange, supernatural powers out there that we can`t understand? Sure. But that`s all we know of them.

---
Dave Ruston

Vatican Scandals are not singularly on the shoulders of this Pope. Interesting that this article comes out after his death. Much of the political red tape was in place at Vatican II, before he became Pope and in fact much of his power to lead the church was taken away at that time. I am not saying that he shouldn't have done more, but I think a person has to understand the inner workings of the Vatican to understand the position he was in, and I believe that he did try to change the world, to change the poverty in the world, to speak for those less fortunate. As for disrespecting women, b.s., if you read anything he has written, he is loves and respects women very much, he had a great love for the Blessed Mother, and was very public in that posturing.

He stood against the war, he spoke to G.Bush about the illegal and unjust invasion of Iraq. He didn't single handedly rid the world of communisn, as we know it is still here, but he was trying to create a better atmosphere for love of neighbour. But again, one man, one person cannot do it all and I think this article makes it sound like one man could have changed the world, but just didn't want to. Also his teachings on birthcontrol, abortion etc. are not to disrespect women, they are the teachings of the church and have been for ever, the fact that he was so attractive to the youth is testament to his love.

The youth were well aware of his teachings, and it would seem they are looking for direction which is not available in our society.

I agree he was human, he was a sinner, and he tried to do his best in the position he was holding. This article is an opinion, not based on fact, and not based on the reality of the position the Pope held within the church. You can't understand the whole story until you understand the workings of the church and in particular the dynamics of the Vatican.

I don't deny there is corruption within the church, evil has definitely penetrate the inner sactum, but I don't believe you can hold John Paul II responsible for things that he had no power to change, because the powers were taken from the Pope's office, before he ever got to it.

Sorry that was me at 8:52 am; here is some info, part of an article on the author's bias, only posted to point out that besides the opinion of an author their bias plays a part in what they write, read the rest at the link:<br />
<a href="http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2003/miesel.htm">http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2003/miesel.htm</a><br />
"Because Yallop and Cornwell are the best spokesmen for their positions, I’ll frame the story of John Paul I’s death as a debate between them. Both authors are British and lapsed Catholics. Yallop, who displays more overt hostility toward the Church and openly disparages Pope John Paul II, got his start writing true crime accounts for a popular audience. The sophisticated Cornwell, on the other hand, later worked at Cambridge. While Yallop presents his findings as the product of his research, Cornwell dramatizes the research process.<br />
<br />
Presuming the existence of what he expects to find, Yallop has a vested interest in arguing for murder; Cornwell does not. Yallop’s shrill editorializing against what he sees as a rich, sex-obsessed Church—“Vatican Incorporated”—clearly slants his book. He piles on peripheral material about Mafia hits, the sins of John Cardinal Cody, and political corruption to heighten the luridness. His ugly, badly reproduced photographs distort the people they represent, even his hero, John Paul I.<br />
<br />
Both writers tape-recorded their interviews and took notes. Neither provides a bibliography or footnotes, although Cornwell has documentary appendixes. Yallop employed at least two research assistants; Cornwell worked alone. Yallop reconstructs conversations that are unknowable and uses blind sources. Cornwell anchors his interviews with crisp personal descriptions of his subjects. Only informants sampled for gossip go incognito. Overall, as a specimen of historical writing, Cornwell’s book commands greater trust. The grave deficiencies of his more recent work, Hitler’s Pope, do not taint A Thief in the Night."<br />
<br />
<br />
I think we need to always consider as much info as possible on a subject, even though one article might support our inner thoughts. If you hate the church or the pope, you probably prefer not to read the other info and leave it as the first article states.<p>---<br>If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?