Atheist thread

Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

"Seems to me that the Muslim world has only grown more fundamentalist in the past 50 years. How do you see this reform playing out?"

The reform hasn't ended. Muhammad came with social and economic reforms in 7th century Arabia. We have left that as seen in Saudi's Sharia Law. So we need to reform Islam to it's original teachings, the way Prophet Muhammad invisioned.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

"And what is it that the Quran classifies as pre-pubescent and pubescent? The dividing line is girls having their period. So if a 9-year-old has her period then it is alright to marry her acc. to the Quran and Muhammad's own example."

Not sure. But definitelty has more to it. Like the girls mental state. She also has to consent to the marriage. In Islam, you can't force a woman to marry a man. If a woman is forced into marriage, then legally that marriage can be nullified. Will not count.
 
h0opman31;4184789 said:
He explain's the full verse here. Nouman Ali Khan is probably the most notable Islamic Scholar in the western world. Muslims across are cultures attend his lectures. Very well known. So Just out of curioisty, watch his video. Cause you're not understanding what I'm saying.

[video=youtube;1azySjz4edk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1azySjz4edk&t=22s[/video]

So a man suspects his wife of cheating and eventually he catches her actually cheating. For that one time, if he 'loses his cool' he is allowed to hit her, that’s what this verse says right? ..no I am not ‘content’ with that, because it’s ridiculous. No man should EVER hit his wife (or vice versa), period.
The amount of information he had to add to that text to have it mean what he says it means is also striking. Is this still 'Allah's word' or more his opinion? I guess it was necessary because as he said in the beginning, disagreeing or having a problem with any verse in the Quran is a crime to him so he can't simply say 'that's not right'. Fact is, although he talked about it for 15 minutes, when you strip it down he said it's okay, under specific circumstances, to hit your wife. I do not care what the circumstances are, it never is.
I'm most curious how you feel about the superiority issue in all of this (since you seem to avoid answering that question) and if you think a woman should be obedient to a man in a marriage. Even this, "men are the caretakers of women", do you agree with that and see yourself as such, as a man?
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Linda my point was religious text has and will continue to be used for 'ill' reasons. I'm not debating the percent used for devious reasons today compared to yesteryear. It's just the fact that they are used.. a large part of the reason why islam today has a larger percentage is simply because many countries were able to seclude there people from outside perspective loner than 'western' countries. The boom of the internet & Social media plays a large role in the boom of awakening by Islamic societies... secluding and segregating people (as you know) makes it easy to keep peoples mind closed.. and force people into "old" views.. It is not until we are surrounded by secular thinking that our society progresses.. ie in America and gay rights for example!



Regarding how most interoperate the Quran, I am speaking first hand, TV (also as you know) jades views and perspective... They literally will showcase activity going on a specific block with 30 stupid people while down the road there are thousands of people talking s** about those on that corner making Islamic people look crazy.. it's like overseas if in the 50's all they would see would be action of the KKK, they'd think all white "Christians" were a specific way... The number of muslims compared to the number who act crazy far outway the crazies..

1.5 billion Muslims in this world, we can't hold an entire religion by what abou 10% of its population has don ..

And Yes there are women abused by men... I will guarantee you there are more women being abused by alcoholic men in the world than by Muslim men. Just in America 30% of women are victims are abused by alcoholics.. that's just under 1 of 3..
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

He explain's the full verse here. Nouman Ali Khan is probably the most notable Islamic Scholar in the western world. Muslims across are cultures attend his lectures. Very well known. So Just out of curioisty, watch his video. Cause you're not understanding what I'm saying.


OK I watched it. Here's my thoughts :)

Within the first minute, he mentions men in the Muslim world hitting women and justifying with the Quran as a major problem. In one of your previous posts (#588), you implied that this was not an issue at all.

Within the first two minutes, he says that "no ayat should be considered negative or should be questioned, because that means questioning the idea of Allah revealing himself. So protecting the integrity of this ayah, to me, is fundamental because many Muslim women I've met have a problem with this ayah." That tells me he's not coming from an intellectually honest place because as he says so himself, his primary concern is protecting the integrity of this verse so that it doesn't cause Muslims to question Allah or Islam.

Then he starts addressing the verse. First sentence describes men as caretakers of women as Allah is the caretaker of people, and a caretaker would never hit or strike someone. Really? Because I can think of plenty of cases in the Quran where Allah inflicts pain on those who disobey his orders, either directly or indirectly.

Then he gets to the root of the verse and somehow equates "disobedience" to cheating, which seems odd to me because the Quran already lays out specific punishments for adultery within marriage and it doesn't include husbands beating their wives. Worse still, the mere suspicion of cheating on the husband's part is enough to accuse her, then ignore her, and finally punish her physically. I wonder if there's a similar recourse for women who suspect their husband is cheating? I forgot, according to that other Islamic scholar I quoted earlier who was extolling the virtues of wife beating, a woman is not allowed to refuse sex to her husband and if she does, that's grounds for a beating. In modern parlance that would be called marital rape.

He casually mentions that any man, whether Muslim or not, would snap and hit his woman if he caught her cheating. That that is the natural reaction. Uh, no :mello:
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

"If I understand correctly, you believe it is OK for an adult man to marry a girl as soon as she hits puberty, which can be anywhere between 9 and 14 years old? That is still a child marriage even if it's not a pre-pubescent marriage."

No I am not okay with that in todays soceity.

Why not?

"Why? And what specifically do you mean by "Islam", as for sure it's not the Quran?"

In Islam, the Quran forbids it.

So did Mohammed violate the Quran when he married a 6-year-old girl?

Not sure. But definitelty has more to it. Like the girls mental state. She also has to consent to the marriage. In Islam, you can't force a woman to marry a man. If a woman is forced into marriage, then legally that marriage can be nullified. Will not count.

Do you believe post-pubescent children are able to consent to marriage?
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

I'll say this, in many Islamic countries it's easier for men to get away with hitting women but it is NOT considered ok in the general public.. It's easier because of 2 things.. 1.in arab and middle eastern cultures it is fairly normal to not discuss much that is 'shameful' outside the home... Yo find out your daughter whored around, you keep that quiet because it's an "embarrassment" (just example)... there is a tendency not to share 'private' matters when they can be looked down upon.. Abuse being one of them... 2. in many of the countries where those cultures come from- they do not have a good legal governing to protect people in domestic issues.. People in general can get away with a lot more with things like abuse..

However, if abuse by a husband was public knowledge in the community that person would be shamed and looked down upon.. That man would basically walk around with a figurative "abuser" note on his back.. it is not accepted in general Islamic communities.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Linda my point was religious text has and will continue to be used for 'ill' reasons. I'm not debating the percent used for devious reasons today compared to yesteryear. It's just the fact that they are used.. a large part of the reason why islam today has a larger percentage is simply because many countries were able to seclude there people from outside perspective loner than 'western' countries. The boom of the internet & Social media plays a large role in the boom of awakening by Islamic societies... secluding and segregating people (as you know) makes it easy to keep peoples mind closed.. and force people into "old" views.. It is not until we are surrounded by secular thinking that our society progresses.. ie in America and gay rights for example!

That's true but you're putting the cart before the horse. The Western/Christian world didn't just wake up to secularism overnight. It's an ongoing development that began more than three centuries ago. The question is how to ignite that initial spark of enlightenment in the Muslim world, that makes it OK to openly question and debate religion and that asserts the primacy of science over superstition? Like I said, as long as even moderate Muslims insist that the Quran is perfect and timeless, there will be no considerable progress.

1.5 billion Muslims in this world, we can't hold an entire religion by what abou 10% of its population has don ..

I'm not talking about individual Muslims. Like I said, I don't pre-judge Muslims based on their religious identity. I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. We're having a discussion about Islam as a religion. We're discussing specific verses and interpretations. That doesn't mean that I think every single Muslim believes in a literal reading of the Quran. That's not the point. When Respect77 and I discuss slavery and marital rape in the Bible, do you also think that means we're judging all 2.4 billion Christians by that standard?

And Yes there are women abused by men... I will guarantee you there are more women being abused by alcoholic men in the world than by Muslim men. Just in America 30% of women are victims are abused by alcoholics.. that's just under 1 of 3..

Do you agree that gender inequality in the Muslim world is worse than in the West?
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

^ I'd have to agree with a side note.. It has to do with the lack of governing much more than Islamic beliefs.. The west has a government set up now that protects people much better. it will take decades of change there as it has here.. Those areas are reaping from the effects of specific rulers.. that will have a long term slow progressive change as people can escape it..

There are a lot of similarities in those countries today as the U.S. did decades ago, it is happening later (today) because eyes are finally being unveiled.. (social media/outside lifestyle)
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

"Do you believe post-pubescent children are able to consent to marriage?"

In those days, of course! It was
commonplace! Even in the western world, in the UK! Ayesha's age was not mentioned as a problem until the early 20th century!

No, I don't think they can consent, today.

"The Islam Muhammad invisioned stoned adulterers, killed gay people, allowed men marry little girls, killed apostates and non-believers and so on and so forth. Is that the "reform" you anticipate? Or if not then what?"

Some videos explaining some of the misconceptions you have of Muhammad.


Re: Stoning.

Stoning is not part of Sharia Law.


Re: Muhammad Killing disbelievers


Re: Ayesha

Ayesha is the most influential women in the history of Islam. She was a politician, adviser, educator, scholar etc. I know that may blow your mind to know how 1.7 Billion Muslims feel about Ayesha, who the western world loves besmirching but have no knowledge of.


Cutting theifs hands can be reformed as well:


Re: Muhammad killing gays

Did Muhammad really order the killing of gays? That itself is a controversial topic based on the authenticity of the hadith.

Re: "Men are caretakers of women", do you agree with that?"


Yes. Prophet Muhammad says in his Final Sermon:

"Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."

Re: "Do you see yourself as a man?"

I will not answer condescending questions :)
 
Last edited:
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

"Do you believe post-pubescent children are able to consent to marriage?"

In those days, of course! It was
commonplace! Even in the western world, in the UK! Ayesha's age was not mentioned as a problem until the early 20th century!

No, I don't think they can consent, today.


What made children able to consent in the 7th century and not today?

"The Islam Muhammad invisioned stoned adulterers, killed gay people, allowed men marry little girls, killed apostates and non-believers and so on and so forth. Is that the "reform" you anticipate? Or if not then what?"

Some videos explaining some of the misconceptions you have of Muhammad.


I would rather you explain the misconceptions in your own words since watching these videos can be quite time consuming and I'm not sure to what extent you yourself agree with what is said in these videos. I do appreciate you addressing these issues though :)

Re: Stoning.
Stoning is not part of Sharia Law.

But it's part of Islam and that's what the discussion was about. You said you would like to go back to the religion as it was originally devised by Mohammed and Respect77 mentioned what that entails.

Ayesha is the most influential women in the history of Islam. She was a politician, adviser, educator, scholar etc. I know that may blow your mind to know how 1.7 Billion Muslims feel about Ayesha, who the western world loves besmirching but have no knowledge of.

I've never heard of anyone besmirching Aisha, only sympathising with her as a child who was married off at 6 and forced to have sex with a man in his 50s when she was 9. That is not morally acceptable, no matter how much you insist.

Re: "Men are caretakers of women", do you agree with that?"
Yes. Prophet Muhammad says in his Final Sermon:

"Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."

Re: "Do you see yourself as a man?"

I will not answer condescending questions :)

I understood Lil's question to mean whether you, as a man, see yourself as a caretaker as well so not meant to be condescending.

Being a caretaker and a 'maintainer' of women implies much more than just being kind to them. It puts women in a childlike, subservient role, as if they cannot take care of themselves. I'd like to think I'm more than a "committed helper" for my husband. And I manage just fine on my own.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

^you misread my question, I asked "do you agree with [men being the caretakers of women] and see yourself as such, as a man? Meaning as a caretaker of women, not if you see yourself as a man, lol.

I notice you still haven't answered the superiority question/questions about what you think of women having to be obedient to men.. but as a woman, hearing a man say it's your job to be our 'caretakers' and we're supposed to be your 'committed helpers' - to me that certainly doesn't sound as us being seen as equal. Do you agree with that?
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

If you are asking me if Wives have the right to think for themselves, make their own decisions based on rational and understanding, then of course. A relationship is all about mutual understanding, respect, and honor. As a Muslim man I have duties as a husband, and she has duties as a wife. That's universal. You don't know many Muslim men do you? lol
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Maybe I'm not the right person to answer these questions. Maybe you can ask a Muslim woman, her opinion on the verse or knowledge on the faith.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

How can stoning be part of Islam if its not part of sharia law?

Where do you see Stoning mentioned in the Quran?
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

If you are asking me if Wives have the right to think for themselves, make their own decisions based on rational and understanding, then of course. A relationship is all about mutual understanding, respect, and honor. As a Muslim man I have duties as a husband, and she has duties as a wife. That's universal. You don't know many Muslim men do you? lol

It's not as universal as you would think. I posted a Pew Research Center poll earlier about Muslim views on women's obedience to their husbands:

gsi2-chp4-2.png
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

I'm asking if you think we're equal. Not just if a wife and husband are, but men and women in general. If you are our 'caretakers' then we are not equal, are we?

'Universal' depends on what kind of duties you believe husbands and wives have towards each other. Those mentioned in the Quran (from what I've read) also certainly don't portray men and women as equal.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

How can stoning be part of Islam if its not part of sharia law?

Where do you see Stoning mentioned in the Quran?

Because Sharia law and Islam are not identical. It's misleading to mention the Quran because as a Muslim, you know that the Hadith are an integral part of Islam as well and it makes multiple references to stoning as punishment:

Found in: Funerals (Al-Janaaiz)
Hadith no: 413
Narrated: Abdullah bin Umar
The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque."

Source: http://ahadith.co.uk/hadithbynarrator.php?n=Abdullah bin Umar&bid=1

Take from me. Verily Allah has ordained a way for them (the women who commit fornication),: (When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year.

Source: https://sunnah.com/muslim/29/19

[FONT=&quot]Imran bin Al-Husain Al-Khuza'i (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A woman from the tribe Juhainah came to Messenger of Allah (?) while she was pregnant from (Zina) adultery and said to him: "O Messenger of Allah! I have committed an offense liable to Hadd (prescribed punishment), so exact the execution of the sentence." Messenger of Allah (?) called her guardian and said to him, "Treat her kindly. Bring her to me after the delivery of the child." That man complied with the orders. At last the Prophet (?) commanded to carry out the sentence. Her clothes were secured around her and she was stoned to death.

Source: https://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/1?

For more references: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Stoning[/FONT]
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

The fact of the matter is, people only hear what they want to hear.

Lets separate the teachings of Islam vs what is practiced.


If you are not happy with this videos response to stoning, then I can't help you. lol
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

As an atheist, I'm much more interested in the teachings of Islam because that is the only objective basis from which to judge whether the religion is true, moral and divine. How it is practiced in modern times is not really relevant to me because much of that is influenced by non-religious factors.

Just look at how far removed modern Christianity is from the Bible. Jesus was a borderline communist and the OT is full of barbaric laws that wouldn't look out of place in the Islamic State.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

So then start acting like you are more interested in the teachings of Islam rather than judging based on what you see in Saudi Arabia.

The Quran is your source. Read it, understand it.

God continues to ask us if we ever thought of this, or pondered over this, have we realized this.....is beautifully structured. Its poetic. Its rhetorical style. It's linguistic miracles (which is a while different topic).

Anyways, I hope I shed some knowledge and I hope you can approach the Quran in an unbias way. But in order to truly do that, you have to believe thats theres a creator lol.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

So then start acting like you are more interested in the teachings of Islam rather than judging based on what you see in Saudi Arabia.

The Quran is your source. Read it, understand it.

God continues to ask us if we ever thought of this, or pondered over this, have we realized this.....is beautifully structured. Its poetic. Its rhetorical style. It's linguistic miracles (which is a while different topic).

Anyways, I hope I shed some knowledge and I hope you can approach the Quran in an unbias way. But in order to truly do that, you have to believe thats theres a creator lol.

Have I not been quoting verses from the Quran and the Hadith all this time? Have I said anything that is factually inaccurate about Islam? The most you could say is that my interpretation differed from yours but I can certainly back up my interpretation with renowned Islamic scholars, as can you (which is part of the problem).

I won't deny that there are beautiful parts in the Quran (just as there are in other religions) but they don't negate the negative ones.

You made it clear that in your opinion, the Quran is perfect and timeless. So it's not just us who come at this from a biased perspective. But I do appreciate you entering the debate and staying respectful :)
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

We are all smart enough to know these scriptures were written in retrospect of what was accepted at the time it was written.. There was a time where when a female menstruates - they become a "woman".. this is said to basically everywhere at some point. With cultural change and scientific expansion of the development of the brain - it has changed the perspective of adolescence and adulthood. In the united states and Europe just over 100 years ago had marriages that were pre puberty for girls.. If this was accepted in 100-200 years ago, I think we can understand that religious scripture written 1.5 thousand + years ago would have writings that had acceptance to things that are NOT accepted it todays generation..

Rabbi Solomon (according to writtings) married a 3 year old baby.. If we dissected all these scriptures from various religious we will find them all filled with what would be considered molestation, incest, rape, abuse etc. which was not thought in the same light as it is today.. being gay is written to be an abomination in almost every scripture I can think of.. Science is proving otherwise, the same as science helped people understand there is more than a girl having her period that makes her be a woman..
 
For those whohave not lived in the Islamic world, I can completely understand impressionsvs. reality. I have lived in both western civilization (United States) and in anIslamic dominate area (Libya).. I can tellyou first hand, if we are talking about moral code and ethics. With progressioninto secular life (“western” life) there is a lot of positivity, more tolerancefor differences by simple education and natural involvement with variouslifestyles. However, when it comes to many ethics, a lot is lost in the west incompared to (for example) Islamic countries. Too many people are jaded, have been cheated and treated unfairly insecular lifestyles to have real trust and high ethical code. In Islamic areas a hand shake is as viable asa contract, a promise is a bond a person stands by. You walk into a store and you are short oncash, the cashier would often say, “Just bring the change next time…” That type of thing does not happen muchhere in the states.
I will saythey are two different worlds, each have pros and cons and until you LIVE inboth you cannot comprehend the difference. I cannot even express in words how different it is!! Of course the time I was in the 90’s prior tosocial media boom that caused the uprisings against governments. Mydad is currently in Libya so I do have view into what is going on (not by the news,not by reading an article), right now there is some scary stuff going on.. Heoften drives up to Tunisia to feel safer! There is simply no government so there are groups “running a muck”.. but like I stated, they are groups.. groups of what are considered thugs out forpower because everything is at there feet. That has nothing to do with religion.. It’s the downfall of a government not being in place, which is aconfusing take for most because people are glad the rulers are out of power butthere is this grey area of too much freedom that allows sh** to go down… Imagine if we did not have a government!! We would have thousands of people robbing,abusing, doing whatever they want… Have you seen the purge?? Lol ok well probably not that bad but….
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

"We could go on. Please let's act now as if the Hadith aren't a part of Islam! That's misleading and disingenuous."

The Quran and Hadith aren't snynonmous with each other, nor used interchangbaly. The Qur'an supersedes the Hadith.

However, the Quran calls Muslims to pray but doesn't show us how. Thats when we follow Prophet Muhammad because he shows us how. The Quran calls for Muslims to fast, but doesn;t show us how. That's when we follow prophet Muhammad because he shows us how. But when it comes to legal issues, the hadith should be re-examined to fit the 21st century.




"So what is your argument then? Once you say Islam needs to go back to its origins and as Muhammad envisioned and practiced it, then you say it needs a reform. But the way Muhammad practiced it included the cutting of thiefs' hands. So you cannot have it both ways. For a reform you will have to admit that there are many practices and visions of Muhammad that are a bad idea for Islam to go back to."


Some of the laws from Sharia Law I think doesn't fit todays time and place and should be reformed:

- Killing homosexuals (controversial/questionable hadith)
- Killing apostates (controversial/questionable hadith, and contradicts Quran, i.e ''no complusion in religion")
- Chopping off hands (commanded for its time and place)
- Women forbidden to drive (no bases on Quran or Hadith or modern day society)
- Male guardianship for Women
- Forced veiling

These are all representations of Saudia Arabia. Not of 1.7 billion Muslims across the globe. Muslim's are not a monolith.

So, this is an example of what I mean when Muslims should reform for a progressive Islam. This is a debate that has been going on for decades!

Muhammad came with social and economic or egaliatarian
reforms. The right for women to choose who they can marry, their right to property, their rights to inheritance, their rights to divorce, the right for the wife to keep her last name as a respect for her father, etc.

The Quran was never mean't to be a book of laws. It's revelation of guidence. That guidence and call for worship of God alone, the creator of the heavens and earth, is timeless until the end of the world.
 
Last edited:
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

double post
 
Last edited:
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

Moving on... Pope Francis is calling out hypocritical Christians :pirate:

Pope suggests it's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian


(...)

Fake Christians

While many of this Pope's pronouncements are often assumed to be novel interpretations of Christian doctrines, Francis was also touching on an ancient debate: If you believe but don't behave, can you get into heaven?

No, the Pope suggested, in characteristically blunt language.

He imagined a wealthy Christian knocking at the gates of heaven and saying, "Here I am, Lord! ... I went to Church, I was close to you, I belong to this association, I did this... Don't you remember all the offerings I made?"

To which Jesus may reply, according to the Pope:

"Yes, I remember. The offerings, I remember them: All dirty. All stolen from the poor. I don't know you.' That will be Jesus' response to these scandalous people who live a double life."

Thursday's sermon is far from the first time Francis has targeted Christian hypocrites. In a sermon last February, the outspoken Pope called out the "fakeness" of Christians who talk piously, but do little to help others.

"To be a Christian means to do: to do the will of God -- and on the last day -- because all of us we will have one -- that day what shall the Lord ask us? Will He say: 'What you have said about me?' No. He shall ask us about the things we did."

It isn't the first time the Pope has mentioned atheists, either. In 2013, he raised questions for saying that heaven is open, potentially, to all people.

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone. "'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!"

Francis continued, "We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."

The Vatican later issued a note clarifying that the Pope was simply saying that God's grace is free to all, even atheists, and urging Christians and non-believers to work together.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/23/world/pope-atheists-again/
 
He's just a PR pope who says what others want to hear. If this this is true, he's a disgusting piece of shit.

Pope Francis has quietly reduced sanctions against a handful of pedophile priests, applying his vision of a merciful church even to its worst offenders in ways that survivors of abuse and the pope's own advisers question.


One case has come back to haunt him: An Italian priest who received the pope's clemency was later convicted by an Italian criminal court for his sex crimes against children as young as 12. The Rev. Mauro Inzoli is now facing a second church trial after new evidence emerged against him, The Associated Press has learned.

The Inzoli case is one of several in which Francis overruled the advice of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and reduced a sentence that called for the priest to be defrocked, two canon lawyers and a church official told AP. Instead, the priests were sentenced to penalties including a lifetime of penance and prayer and removal from public ministry.

In some cases, the priests or their high-ranking friends appealed to Francis for clemency by citing the pope's own words about mercy in their petitions, the church official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the proceedings are confidential.

"With all this emphasis on mercy ... he is creating the environment for such initiatives," the church official said, adding that clemency petitions were rarely granted by Pope Benedict XVI, who launched a tough crackdown during his 2005-2013 papacy and defrocked some 800 priests who raped and molested children.

At the same time, Francis also ordered three longtime staffers at the congregation dismissed, two of whom worked for the discipline section that handles sex abuse cases, the lawyers and church official said.


One is the head of the section and will be replaced before leaving March 31. Vatican spokesman Greg Burke said the others too will be replaced and that staffing in the office, which has a yearslong backlog of cases, would be strengthened after Francis recently approved hiring more officials.

"The speed with which cases are handled is a serious matter and the Holy Father continues to encourage improvements in this area," Burke told AP.

He also dispelled rumors that sex-abuse cases would no longer be handled by the congregation, saying the strengthened office would handle all cases submitted.

Burke said Francis' emphasis on mercy applied to "even those who are guilty of heinous crimes." He said priests who abuse are permanently removed from ministry, but are not necessarily dismissed from the clerical state, the church term for laicization or defrocking.

"The Holy Father understands that many victims and survivors can find any sign of mercy in this area difficult," Burke said. "But he knows that the Gospel message of mercy is ultimately a source of powerful healing and of grace."

St. John Paul II was long criticized for failing to respond to the abuse crisis, but ultimately he said in 2002 that "there is no place in the priesthood or religious life" for anyone who would harm the young. Francis has repeatedly proclaimed "zero tolerance" for abusive priests and in December wrote to the world's bishops committing to take "all necessary measures" to protect them.

But he also recently said he believed sex abusers suffer from a "disease" — a medical term used by defense lawyers to seek mitigating factors in canonical sentences.

Marie Collins, an Irish abuse survivor and founding member of Francis' sex-abuse advisory commission, expressed dismay that the congregation's recommended penalties were being weakened and said abusers are never so sick that they don't know what they're doing.

"All who abuse have made a conscious decision to do so," Collins told AP. "Even those who are pedophiles, experts will tell you, are still responsible for their actions. They can resist their inclinations."

Victim advocates have long questioned Francis' commitment to continuing Benedict's tough line, given he had no experience dealing with abusive priests or their victims in his native Argentina. While Francis counts Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley as his top adviser on abuse, he has also surrounded himself with cardinal advisers who botched handling abuse cases in their archdioceses.

"They are not having zero tolerance," said Rocio Figueroa, a former Vatican official and ex-member of the Peru-based Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, a conservative Catholic lay society rocked by sex scandals. The Vatican recently handed down sanctions against the group's founder after determining that he sexually, psychologically and physically abused his recruits. His victims, however, are enraged that it took the Vatican six years to decide that the founder should be isolated, but not expelled, from the community.

The church official stressed that to his knowledge, none of Francis' reduced sentences had put children at risk.

Many canon lawyers and church authorities argue that defrocking pedophiles can put society at greater risk because the church no longer exerts any control over them. They argue that keeping the men in restricted ministry, away from children, at least enables superiors to exert some degree of supervision.

But Collins said the church must also take into account the message that reduced canonical sentences sends to both survivors and abusers.

"While mercy is important, justice for all parties is equally important," Collins said in an email. "If there is seen to be any weakness about proper penalties, then it might well send the wrong message to those who would abuse."

It can also come back to embarrass the church. Take for example the case of Inzoli, a well-connected Italian priest who was found guilty by the Vatican in 2012 of abusing young boys and ordered defrocked.

Inzoli appealed and in 2014 Francis reduced the penalty to a lifetime of prayer, prohibiting him from celebrating Mass in public or being near children, barring him from his diocese and ordering five years of psychotherapy.

In a statement announcing Francis' decision to reduce the sentence, Crema Bishop Oscar Cantoni said "no misery is so profound, no sin so terrible that mercy cannot be applied."

In November, an Italian criminal judge showed little mercy in convicting Inzoli of abusing five children, aged 12-16, and sentencing him to four years, nine months in prison. The judge said Inzoli had a number of other victims but their cases fell outside the statute of limitations.

Burke disclosed to AP that the Vatican recently initiated a new canonical trial against Inzoli based on "new elements" that had come to light. He declined to elaborate.

Amid questions about how the battle against abuse was faring, Francis recently named O'Malley, who heads his sex-abuse advisory commission, as a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But it's not clear what influence he can wield from his home base in Boston.

Francis scrapped the commission's proposed tribunal for bishops who botch abuse cases following legal objections from the congregation. The commission's other major initiative — a guideline template to help dioceses develop policies to fight abuse and safeguard children — is gathering dust. The Vatican never sent the template to bishops' conferences, as the commission had sought, or even linked it to its main abuse-resource website.

http://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/wi...-sanctions-sex-abusers-seeking-mercy-45732198
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

He's just a PR pope who says what others want to hear. If this this is true, he's a disgusting piece of shit.

I don't think that's true. He's made some rather controversial statements for which he received quite a backlash from conservative Christians.

And even in granting mercy to pedophile priests, I don't think it's fair to say he's a pos for doing that. It's consistent with Christian theology even if it goes against our own moral instincts. That doesn't mean he approves of what they have done.
 
Re: Athesit Thread (For non-believers only)

As the head of The Roman Catholic Church, what is he doing to help the victims and the authorities to get/make justice or avoid pedophiles in the clergy to re-offend? Even if granting them mercy is consistent with the Christian principles, it is as useless as prsying.
 
Back
Top