Jump to content

Say it ain't so, Joe


Viper
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's a bull :censored: post, Ice Cap. Completely disingenuous. The Pope didn't weigh in on the Penn State matter at all. This is from his 2010 Christmas address. The article contians quotes from him condemming it, and the transcript of the address provides further context.

It's the topic of child molestation. No, he didn't weigh in on the Penn State matter, but he did weigh in on a very similar situation: an old, established institution protecting child molesters in order to protect their image. That much seems relevant, so I opted to post it. Being from last year I felt it deserved to be placed within this thread rather then given a new thread.

If anyone ops to just read the article selectively to form their opinion then that's their business, and they do themselves a disservice. I didn't just post snippets, I posted the whole thing, which as you pointed out, gives a more complete picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ice Cap's post may have implied something that it was not. Nevertheless, this all brings up something that is applicable to this thread...

It is unbelievable how many cultures cover this stuff up and don't do anything about it. Penn State, The Red Sox of the 70s through ??, The Citadel, and of course the Catholic Church (just Google Pope Benedict on Child Molestation and make your own call). What do they all have in common? Horrific acts, people protecting the image of the institution, LOTS of people in the know letting the past/current/future victims down, not doing anything about it until it becomes public (and still having to be dragged kicking and screaming in some cases).

In short, it is downright depressing that this is so commonplace. It makes me not think to much of people. None of us is dumb enough to think that steroids and NCAA violations have not been covered up. But I was dumb enough to think that this was different. People suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a bull :censored: post, Ice Cap. Completely disingenuous. The Pope didn't weigh in on the Penn State matter at all. This is from his 2010 Christmas address. The article contians quotes from him condemming it, and the transcript of the address provides further context.

It doesn't matter that his was from 2010. It doesn't matter that it was not about Penn State. The pope said child rape was acceptable. The fact that he condemned it on a separate occasion only shows how two faced Benedict is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a bull :censored: post, Ice Cap. Completely disingenuous. The Pope didn't weigh in on the Penn State matter at all. This is from his 2010 Christmas address. The article contians quotes from him condemming it, and the transcript of the address provides further context.

It's the topic of child molestation. No, he didn't weigh in on the Penn State matter, but he did weigh in on a very similar situation: an old, established institution protecting child molesters in order to protect their image. That much seems relevant, so I opted to post it. Being from last year I felt it deserved to be placed within this thread rather then given a new thread.

You could have added some context in your post though.

I do think though there are similarities, though their are also differences between the Penn State situation and the Pope's comments. The Pope was talking in generalities across a range of different incidents, and is talking within the strictures of the teachings of the Catholic Church. The context of most of the comment about Penn State is a specific case of a child molester (at the very least). So I don't think it's very useful to compare what the Pope said to the Penn State situation.

That's a bull :censored: post, Ice Cap. Completely disingenuous. The Pope didn't weigh in on the Penn State matter at all. This is from his 2010 Christmas address. The article contians quotes from him condemming it, and the transcript of the address provides further context.

It doesn't matter that his was from 2010. It doesn't matter that it was not about Penn State. The pope said child rape was acceptable. The fact that he condemned it on a separate occasion only shows how two faced Benedict is.

The Pope did most certainly NOT say any form of child abuse was acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a bull :censored: post, Ice Cap. Completely disingenuous. The Pope didn't weigh in on the Penn State matter at all. This is from his 2010 Christmas address. The article contians quotes from him condemming it, and the transcript of the address provides further context.

It's the topic of child molestation. No, he didn't weigh in on the Penn State matter, but he did weigh in on a very similar situation: an old, established institution protecting child molesters in order to protect their image. That much seems relevant, so I opted to post it. Being from last year I felt it deserved to be placed within this thread rather then given a new thread.

You could have added some context in your post though.

I do think though there are similarities, though their are also differences between the Penn State situation and the Pope's comments. The Pope was talking in generalities across a range of different incidents, and is talking within the strictures of the teachings of the Catholic Church. The context of most of the comment about Penn State is a specific case of a child molester (at the very least). So I don't think it's very useful to compare what the Pope said to the Penn State situation.

I could have, and in retrospect I should have, and for that I apologize.

I do still think the article is relevant though, and people should read the whole thing through before making their mind up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a bull :censored: post, Ice Cap. Completely disingenuous. The Pope didn't weigh in on the Penn State matter at all. This is from his 2010 Christmas address. The article contians quotes from him condemming it, and the transcript of the address provides further context.

It's the topic of child molestation. No, he didn't weigh in on the Penn State matter, but he did weigh in on a very similar situation: an old, established institution protecting child molesters in order to protect their image. That much seems relevant, so I opted to post it. Being from last year I felt it deserved to be placed within this thread rather then given a new thread.

You could have added some context in your post though.

I do think though there are similarities, though their are also differences between the Penn State situation and the Pope's comments. The Pope was talking in generalities across a range of different incidents, and is talking within the strictures of the teachings of the Catholic Church. The context of most of the comment about Penn State is a specific case of a child molester (at the very least). So I don't think it's very useful to compare what the Pope said to the Penn State situation.

That's a bull :censored: post, Ice Cap. Completely disingenuous. The Pope didn't weigh in on the Penn State matter at all. This is from his 2010 Christmas address. The article contians quotes from him condemming it, and the transcript of the address provides further context.

It doesn't matter that his was from 2010. It doesn't matter that it was not about Penn State. The pope said child rape was acceptable. The fact that he condemned it on a separate occasion only shows how two faced Benedict is.

The Pope did most certainly NOT say any form of child abuse was acceptable.

From the article.

In his traditional Christmas address yesterday to cardinals and officials working in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also claimed that child pornography was increasingly considered "normal" by society.

"In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children," the Pope said.

"It was maintained - even within the realm of Catholic theology - that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a 'better than' and a 'worse than'. Nothing is good or bad in itself."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has already been mentioned or not...Paterno transferred ownership of home to his wife back in July. Hmmmmmmmm

http://www.nytimes.c...wife-for-1.html

I don't see that as worrisome.

While both are old. she is 13 years younger than him, so that was done solely for estate purposes as women live longer than men on average.

You don't? Looks like an asset shield to me. She would have gained the house upon is death anyway (either by will or intestate succession.) Bernie Madoff did the same kind of thing as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on now. I actually looked up the actual 2010 Christmas speech, and he did not say anything that the article said he did.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8224816/The-Popes-Christmas-message-in-full.html

Plus, look at the message underneath picture in Ice_Cap's article. I have a feeling that article is bogus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on now. I actually looked up the actual 2010 Christmas speech, and he did not say anything that the article said he did.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8224816/The-Popes-Christmas-message-in-full.html

Plus, look at the message underneath picture in Ice_Cap's article. I have a feeling that article is bogus.

The two are referring to different speeches set in different contexts. The sppech ice cap quoted from was a private speech given to Cardinals, hence it's more intellectual tone. The sermon you've found was his Christmas Day homily, meant for wider consumption.

In the context of ice caps article, normal and acceptable are not synonyms. In laymans terms as an example in the context of Catholic teaching, having sex with someone you are not married too may be considered 'normal' but it's not acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has already been mentioned or not...Paterno transferred ownership of home to his wife back in July. Hmmmmmmmm

http://www.nytimes.c...wife-for-1.html

I don't see that as worrisome.

While both are old. she is 13 years younger than him, so that was done solely for estate purposes as women live longer than men on average.

You don't? Looks like an asset shield to me. She would have gained the house upon is death anyway (either by will or intestate succession.) Bernie Madoff did the same kind of thing as well.

Furthermore, there are ways for couples to hold title ("joint tenancy," "life tenancy", "transfer on death deeds", etc.) which ensure that title passes to the surviving spouse upon one's death, regardless of whether there's a will in place or not. I agree this looks like an asset dump, since that would seem to be the greatest advantage of this particular transfer.

Anyone else read the Charles Pierce item at Grantland? Pretty good stuff:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7233704/the-brutal-truth-penn-state

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has already been mentioned or not...Paterno transferred ownership of home to his wife back in July. Hmmmmmmmm

http://www.nytimes.c...wife-for-1.html

I don't see that as worrisome.

While both are old. she is 13 years younger than him, so that was done solely for estate purposes as women live longer than men on average.

You don't? Looks like an asset shield to me. She would have gained the house upon is death anyway (either by will or intestate succession.) Bernie Madoff did the same kind of thing as well.

Furthermore, there are ways for couples to hold title ("joint tenancy," "life tenancy", "transfer on death deeds", etc.) which ensure that title passes to the surviving spouse upon one's death, regardless of whether there's a will in place or not. I agree this looks like an asset dump, since that would seem to be the greatest advantage of this particular transfer.

Anyone else read the Charles Pierce item at Grantland? Pretty good stuff:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7233704/the-brutal-truth-penn-state

That's one of the best things i've read about this whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ice Cap's post may have implied something that it was not. Nevertheless, this all brings up something that is applicable to this thread...

It is unbelievable how many cultures cover this stuff up and don't do anything about it. Penn State, The Red Sox of the 70s through ??, The Citadel, and of course the Catholic Church (just Google Pope Benedict on Child Molestation and make your own call). What do they all have in common? Horrific acts, people protecting the image of the institution, LOTS of people in the know letting the past/current/future victims down, not doing anything about it until it becomes public (and still having to be dragged kicking and screaming in some cases).

In short, it is downright depressing that this is so commonplace. It makes me not think to much of people. None of us is dumb enough to think that steroids and NCAA violations have not been covered up. But I was dumb enough to think that this was different. People suck.

See there's your problem right there. You had faith in humanity. I have none and as such I'm pleasantly surprised when people do the right thing or good things. Because most don't more often than not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when this thread was about penn state, paterno and sandusky? Take your religious/political arguments somewhere else please. Don't pollute another thread with pissing contest banter.

edit:

Lawyer Says Alleged Sandusky Victim Will Testify to Severe Sexual Assault

“Mr. Sandusky suggested in some of his comments about the victims that maybe people were backing off,” Andreozzi said in a telephone interview from his office in Harrisburg, Pa. “My client heard that and has dug in his heels. He is feeling more comfortable about going through with this. The comments maybe backfired. They have caused victims to be more motivated to testify against him.”

Andreozzi said his client, now in his 20s, met Sandusky through Sandusky’s charity, the Second Mile. He said he had been around Sandusky for several years and was assaulted multiple times. Andreozzi has also advised other alleged victims in the case and said he was meeting with another potential victim this week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/ncaafootball/lawyer-says-client-will-testify-to-severe-sexual-assault-in-sandusky-case.html?_r=1&src=tp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.