Popes John Paul II
and Benedict XVI
[  http://CatholicArrogance.Org/popesnosaints.html ]

Pope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II
Cardinal Karol Wojtyla
before becoming JP II

After a week of wall-to-wall coverage of Pope John Paul II's death and funeral, everyone knows that you can't compete with the Roman Catholic Church when it comes to putting on a good show.  Who can doubt that anyone who can command a funeral like this has to be the apple of God's eye?

Jesus may have said of himself, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head" (Matt. 8:20), but that was before his successors built themselves their 10,000 room Vatican palace and their even larger vacation home, Castel Gondolofo.  This year, thanks to John Paul's concern for the comfort of the poor Cardinals, they were housed in the $20 million hotel, which he had built in the Vatican recently, i.e. "Domus Sanctae Marthae".

Unlike John Paul II, who was extremely Conservative and died a very old and sickly man after enjoying the second longest term in papal history, 29 years, his immediate predecessor, John Paul I, was perhaps the most Liberal pope ever, but died a very young and healthy man at age 66, after being in office for just 33 days, the second shortest term in papal history,  See why many, especially in Italy, believe that the unexpected death of the first John Paul was no accident : JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/murderedpope.

{ Isaiah 58:1-10 }:  

"Shout with the voice of a trumpet blast; tell my people of their sins!  Yet they act so pious!   They come to the Temple every day and are so delighted to hear the reading of my laws – just as though they would obey them – just as though they don't despise the commandments of their God!  How anxious they are to worship correctly; oh, how they love the Temple services! ;  ' We have fasted before you,' they say.  ' Why aren't you impressed?  Why don't you see our sacrifices?  Why don't you hear our prayers?   We have done much penance, and you don't even notice it! '

I'll tell you why!   Because you are living in evil pleasure even while you are fasting, and you keep right on oppressing your workers.  Look, what good is fasting when you keep on fighting and quarreling?  This kind of fasting will never get you anywhere with me.  Is this what I want – this doing of penance and bowing like reeds in the wind, putting on sackcloth and covering yourselves with ashes?  Is this what you call fasting?   The kind of fast I want is that you stop oppressing those who work for you and treat them fairly and give them what they earn.  I want you to share your food with the hungry and destitute.  Clothe those who are cold, and don't hide from relatives who need your help.

If you do these things, God will shed his own glorious light upon you.  He will heal you.  Your godliness will lead you forward, goodness will be a shield before you, and the glory of the Lord will protect you from behind.  Then, when you call, the Lord will answer.  'Yes, I am here,' he will quickly reply.  All you need to do is to stop oppressing the weak and stop making false accusations and spreading vicious rumors!  "Feed the hungry!   Help those in trouble!  Then your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you shall be as bright as day."

Isaiah was certainly one of Jesus' favorite prophets.  One of Jesus' most important sermons expresses the very same theme as the passage above :

{ Matthew 25 } 

"When I, the Messiah, shall come in glory, and all the angels with me, then I shall sit upon my throne of glory.  And all the nations shall be gathered before me.  And I will separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and place the sheep at my right hand, and the goats at my left.

Last Judgement

Then I, the King, shall say to those at my right, "Come, blessed of my Father, into the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world.   For I was hungry and you fed me;  I was thirsty and you gave me water;   I was a stranger and you invited me into your homes;   naked and you clothed me;   sick and in prison, and you visited me."

Then these righteous ones will reply,  "Sir, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you?  Or thirsty and give you anything to drink?  Or a stranger, and help you?  Or naked, and clothe you?  When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?"  And I, the King, will tell them,  "When you did it to these my brothers you were doing it to me!"

Then I will turn to those on my left and say,   "Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.   For I was hungry and you wouldn't feed me;   thirsty, and you wouldn't give me anything to drink;   a stranger, and you refused me hospitality;   naked, and you wouldn't clothe me;   sick, and in prison,  and you didn't visit me."

Then they will reply,  "Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison,  and not help you?"

And I will answer,  "When you refused to help the least of these my brothers, you were refusing help to me."  And they shall go away into eternal punishment;   but the righteous into everlasting life."

And when Jesus first went public with his revolutionary message, he chose the words of this great prophet to introduce himself :

Christ's Mission {Luke 4:18} :
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me;
he has appointed me
to preach Good News to the poor;
he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted
and to announce that the blind shall see,
that captives shall be released
and the downtrodden shall be freed
(i.e. liberated) from their oppressors."
{ according to John 16:1–4 }

"I have said these things to you to keep you from stumbling.  They will put you out of the synagogues (or "churches").  Indeed, an hour is coming when those who kill you will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God.  And they will do this because they have not known the Father or me.  But I have said these things to you so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you about them."

{ according to John 15:19–25 }

"If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own.  Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world–therefore the world hates you.  Remember the word that I said to you, 'Servants are not greater than their master.'  If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.  But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me

Jesus predicted that his followers would be persecuted.  That's exactly what happened when a small number of Catholic leaders in Latin America identified with the poor for a change.  And who was the one throwing Christ's followers out of their churches and church positions?  none other but Pope John Paul II and the future Pope Benedict XVI, who as head of "The Holy Office of the Inquisition" persecuted those Catholic leaders who dared to oppose the fascist governments of Latin America and their "Contra" enforcers, who were so loved and helped by the Reagan administration, in contravention to the laws passed by the Liberals who had dominated Congress before "the Reagan revolution").

Pope John Paul II, has been called "best frontman the Roman Catholic Church ever had" (by Bono, the lead singer of the world famous U2 band,).

Pope John Paul II: Zyklon B Salesman

In his book 'Behold a Pale Horse,' former US Naval Intelligence Officer William Cooper relates a story associated with the IG Farben Chemical Company. In the early 1940s, that company employed a Polish chemist and salesman who sold cyanide gas, Zyklon B and Malathion to the Nazis for extermination of groups of people in Auschwitz.

After the war the salesman joined the Catholic church and was ordained a priest.In 1958 he became Poland's youngest bishop and after Pope John Paul I's mysterious death, the ex-cyanide gas salesman Karol Wojtyla was elected to the papacy as Pope John Paul II in October 1978.

THIS is the kind of pope whose canonization Conservative Catholics applaud as models for their clergy to emulate :

The new Pope continued to ignore `careful advice'. During the first week of November he made yet another decision that astonished his Secretary of State and many other insiders. This time he countermanded .the orders not of John Paul I, but Paul VI. In doing so he chose to ignore an extraordinary volume of evidence compiled over four years at the direct instructions of Pope Paul. The issue was the shrine of Our Lady of Czestochowa in Jasna Gora in Poland, controlled by the Pauline Fathers. Among their other activities they administered a replica shrine in Doylestown, Philadelphia. This secondary activity had brought a Vatican investigating team on the direct orders of Pope Paul VI to the Order's American Headquarters. They established that the Superior of the Order, Father Michael M. Zembruski, and his favourites within the Order had dispensed with their vows of poverty and were living the high life with the use of credit cards, checking accounts, secret investments and huge loans. Father Michael was running a mistress as well as several Cadillacs. He had used donations to make illegal investments in two hospitals, a cemetery, a trade school, an aircraft equipment plant, a foundry and a number of other businesses. The investments were structured to obtain the greatest advantage from the Order's tax-exempt status. The Vatican investigators also established that the Order had raised $250,000 from the Catholic faithful for hearings of the Mass, a curious revival of medieval practice, except that in Philadelphia the fathers spent the money and never even bothered to say the Masses. The investigators discovered another scam involving extracting a further $400,000 of contributions towards the cost of installing bronze memorial plaques within the shrine. Again, the funds were spent. No plaques were erected. The scams were countless, the embezzlements huge. The Pauline Fathers got through a substantial part of $20 million raised in charitable donations. Father Michael obtained multi-million dollar bank loans. His security was a letter of guarantee from Father George Tomzinski, his superior in Poland, supreme head of the worldwide Pauline order.

The letter, in effect authority to spend the total assets of the Pauline Order valued by Father Tomzinski at $500 million, did not bear close investigation, but that did not stop the Polish Primate Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski and Karol Wojtyla rushing to intervene on behalf of a man who was a disgrace to the Pauline Fathers Order. In 1976 the Vatican investigators, with the approval of Pope Paul VI, dismissed Father Michael Zembruski from the Order. Wyszynski and Wojtyla flew to Rome and proceeded to rewrite the verdict. They successfully pressured Pope Paul and his Vatican advisors into reversing the decisions. Subsequently Cardinal Wyszynski fired every single senior member of the Order who had co-operated with the investigation. His action, however, was illegal under Church law and shortly before he died (Pope) Paul had appointed a committee to re-examine the entire affair. Less than three weeks into papal office, Wojtyla dismissed the committee and issued a confidential directive upholding Wyszynski's illegal dismissal of men who were guilty of telling the truth.

The Roman Curia were dumbfounded. Senior officials within the Vatican Government saw it as a blatant misuse of papal authority in the name of Polish nationalism. Others, including a number of cardinals, saw the new Pope's actions in conjunction with his refusal to clean up the Vatican Bank as evidence of something far more disturbing. They began to consider the possibility that they had placed on Peter's Throne wilful, corrupt and potentially very dangerous man."

(The Power and the Glory, by David Yallop, pp 36-37)

In his first organizational move upon becoming Pope, John Paul II changed the reporting status of Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, President of the Vatican Bank directly to himself. An unexplained deficit of a few million dollars occurred during his watch and was uncovered by an audit that had been ordered by his predecessor, the very Liberal first John Paul, who died just 33 days after becoming pope, following the suspicious death of another fairly Liberal pope, Paul VI. ( see Murders in the Vatican. Under John Paul II, Marcinkus masterminded what later became known as "The Great Vatican Bank Scandal" which brought Italy to financial ruin. The Pope transferred $1.4 billion, which been raised by Roberto Calvi from unsuspecting European investors, from the Vatican Bank (which holds money that is supposed to go to "good works") to a conglomerate in Panama. Despite years of Italian court proceedings and investigations no one was ever able to learn what happened to it.  But all of this happened the year after the suspicious deaths of Popes Paul VI and John Paul I, and there is little evidence that Marcinkus had anything to do with those deaths. Shortly after the incident, Pope John Paul II paid $241 million in cash to European investors and swept the scandal under the rug once and for all.

A leading candidate for the red hat, Archbishop Marcinkus was forced into exile not long after he made a comment to the press, "I keep telling John Paul (II) 'If we keep sweeping things under the rug we will eventually trip over it.' "  Eventually he returned to the U.S.A. and retired to Arizona, but early in February, 2006, a court in Rome which was trying five members of the mafia for the murder of Roberto Calvi filed papers in a federal court in Phoenix, AZ in an effort to extradite Marchinkus. Two weeks later the Archdiocese of Phoenix announced that Markinkus had been found dead in his house, but it has consistently refused to release the cause of death.

Although the largely secular mass media idolized this man, as did those who represent the establishment in the Catholic Church, here's a more sober assessment of this pope, by a well-informed insider, the renowned German theologian, Hans Kung, who criticized John Paul II in April, 2005 for the following failings :

  1. Human Rights: The pope promoted human rights around the world, but seriously restricted them within the Church – particularly among the bishops, church theologians "and especially women." 3 The Church has not signed the European Council's Declaration of Human Rights." Vatican investigations of its personnel lack due process.
  2. Role of Women: "The great worshiper of the Virgin Mary preaches a noble concept of womanhood, but at the same time forbids women from practicing birth control and bars them from ordination." The result is an exodus of women from the Church.
  3. Human sexuality: Although the pope preached against poverty and suffering, his policies on the birth control pill and condoms has made him "...more than any other statesman....partly responsible for uncontrolled population growth in some countries and the spread of AIDS in Africa." In the developed world, sexual policies of the church are being largely ignored by the laity.
  4. Married priesthood: By requiring priests to be celibate, the number of men willing to enter the priesthood has dropped precipitously. Küng notes that the number of new priests in Germany has reduced from 366 in 1990 to 161 in 2003. The average age of priests in many developed countries has approached or has passed retirement age. He also attributes the pedophile scandals which have rocked the church in the U.S., Canada and other countries, to the requirement for priestly celibacy.
  5. Ecumenical movement: "The pope likes to be seen as a spokesman for the ecumenical movement." However, he has continued the church's policy of not acknowledging their "ecclesiastical offices and Communion services."
  6. Collegiality: Some of the main principle of Vatican II were collegiality – i.e. power sharing – and dialogue. This did not materialize. Bishops are selected by the pope according to their willingness to be "...absolutely loyal to the party line in Rome."
  7. Clericalism: Küng suggests that the pope's policies generate hostility against the Church. These are particularly visible in matters relating to human sexuality: e.g. abortion, artificial insemination, birth control, and divorce. This "strengthens the position of dogmatic anti-clericalists and fundamentalist atheists."
  8. New blood in the church: The pope relies heavily on conservative "new movements" like Opus Dei, Regnum Christi, Focolare, etc to involve youth in the Church. Other youth movements are financially starved. Sins of the past: Pope John Paul II did confess failures and transgressions by Roman Catholics in the past. But the apology was "vague, non-specific and ambiguous." Blame was placed on individual Catholics; the popes and the Church itself are regarded as innocent. "The half-hearted papal confession remained without consequences, producing neither reversals nor action, only words."

Küng concluded: "Contrary to all intentions conveyed in the Second Vatican Council, the medieval Roman system, a power apparatus with totalitarian features, was restored through clever and ruthless personnel and academic policies. Bishops were brought into line, pastors overloaded, theologians muzzled, the laity deprived of their rights, women discriminated against, national synods and churchgoers' requests ignored, along with sex scandals, prohibitions on discussion, liturgical spoon-feeding, a ban on sermons by lay theologians, incitement to denunciation, prevention of Holy Communion – 'the world' can hardly be blamed for all of this!! The upshot is that the Catholic church has completely lost the enormous credibility it once enjoyed under the papacy of John XXIII and in the wake of the Second Vatican Council."

Pope John XXIII

Somehow, for a brief time the Roman Catholic Church had a truly humble pope named "John XXIII" , who was responsible for the revolutionary Second Vatican Council:

"Shortly after becoming pope, he went to the Holy Office ("of the Inquisition", which is charged with guarding against heresy) and looked up his own file, which had a note attached to it: "suspected of Modernism."  This is why his career had been ruined thirty years before.

"How many Christians or Jews know of that Catholic apostolic delegate to Turkey and Greece, Angelo Roncalli, who contrary to the Vatican's wishes, issued false baptismal certificates providing safe housing for Jews under Papal protection and issued Vatican passports to enable Jews to travel safely to Italy or Palestine.  Roncalli knew the Bulgarian royal family personally, especially the Italian Queen Giovanina, the mother of Princess Marie Louise.  The Queen pressured the Italian Ambassador to Bulgaria to issue passports enabling Jews to escape."

(from Bulgarian Rescue of Its Jews by Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis,  April 12, 2002.

See how Bulgaria refused to cooperate with its Nazi allies when it came to handing over its Jews and thereby saved all of its Jews.

When Eric Rudolph pled guilty to 4 bombings in which he killed two people and wounded over 100 others, that didn't result in his being allowed to escape his life sentence in prison. It only enabled him to escape capital punishment.

When, on the other hand, Pope John Paul II issued a very vague apology and when he became the first pope to make a highly staged visit to a Jewish synagogue, Catholics think that, when it comes to their hierarchy, all of the moral teaching of their church about repentence, confession, and reparation that the hierarchy constantly preaches to others should be cast aside, and the hierarchy's past misdeads should be completely forgotten.

In 1989, John Paul reportedly acknowledged privately to Jewish leaders he met in Cologne on Friday that the church hierarchy had indeed done too little to resist Nazism. But nowhere did he repeat the acknowledgment publicly."

[ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7D61039F936A35756C0A961948260 ].

Why was Pope J P II in such a hurry to canonize Popes Pius IX & Pius XII ?

That the Church could seriously be considering declaring Pius XII a saint shows how far it is from a genuine confrontation with and understanding of its offenses, which include his.

The spate of recent books dwelling on the misconduct of Pius XII during the Holocaust has put the Church under pressure, as it wishes formally to begin the process that would typically lead to his canonization.  That it would declare this man with his record a saint should not surprise anyone who knows that, in 2000, Pope John Paul II beatified Pius IX, the nineteenth century father of modern Church antisemitism who declared in 1871 that by rejecting Christianity, Jews had become 'dogs' and that 'we have today in Rome unfortunately too many of these dogs, and we hear them barking in all the streets, and going around molesting people everywhere.' Pius IX's antisemitism was not confined to his vivid invective.  He was also a passionate persecutor of Jews and infamously refused to return the Jewish child Edgardo Mortara, abducted from his parents by one of the Church's inquisitors.' [ See Pope Pius IX - kidnapper ]

Trying to quell the criticism about Pius XII, the Vatican announced in October 1999 its creation of a commission of three Catholic and three Jewish historians to investigate the Pope's conduct during the Holocaust.  The commission's initial task was to review the Church's own published wartime diplomatic documents, ask questions, and produce a report.

In October, 2000 the commission issued 'The Vatican and the Holocaust: A Preliminary Report.'  Its members requested a broad range of materials necessary for them to complete their work, which indicated how much the Church was keeping buried and suggested, with their forty-seven questions, how damaging that unseen material might be.  When after ten months of inaction it became clear to the commission that the Vatican had no intention of providing the materials, the commission suspended its work.  The Vatican responded by accusing the Jewish members of the commission of conducting a 'defamatory campaign' against the Church.  (The Vatican did this even though the commission in its report bent over backward to be inoffensive, nonjudgmental, and understanding.') The commission's Catholic members did not contest their Jewish colleagues' disclosure that they had always expected that the Church would give them access to the documents necessary for their work.  Yet the Vatican did not attack the non-Jews.  If, as the Church maintained, the Jews were lying, then so were the Catholics.  Why, then, attack only the Jews, and why use the classical antisemitic trope that Jews are conducting a 'campaign' against the Church?

That the Church was not going to allow the commission to undertake a serious probe of Plus XII might have been obvious from the beginning, because the priest whom the Vatican designated to be its representative to the commission, and the author of the Church's official public attack on the Jewish historians, the Jesuit Father Gumpel, is the Church's official handler of, and main public advocate for furthering, Pius XII's candidacy for canonization.  Against all the evidence, Father Gumpel maintains that Pius XII was saintly regarding the Jews, 'laboring ceaselessly' for them.  Speaking in this regard, officially for the Church, he brands Jews who criticize Pius XII as responsible for 'calumnious attacks against this great and saintly man' and even as 'massive accomplices in the destruction of the Catholic Church,' just as 'Jews were the managers of Communism' (a Nazi-like charge), which 'persecuted the Catholic Church.'  As if such antisemitic slurs were not enough, Father Gumpel made a special point of stirring up antisemitism by emphatically declaring on CBS News to millions of people: 'Let us be frank and open about this....  It is a fact that the Jews have killed Christ.  This is an undeniable historical fact.'

John Paul II has not censured Father Gumpel.  Father Gumpel has, however, been denounced by Gerhard Bodendorfer, the chief of the coordinating body for Christian Jewish dialogue in Austria, as a man 'hawking' such 'old, obviously undistilled prejudices,' such as 'conspiracy theories about world Judaism' that 'come out of the lowest drawer of antisemitism.'  Yet Father Gumpel maintains a place of great honor and responsibility in the Church, which gave him the platform to defame Jews who merely seek the records they need for the work that the Church set them to do.

What is the Church hiding?  Why does it forbid researchers from using its archives?  If Pius XII were as blameless, heroic, and 'saintly' as the Church maintains, then why does it not produce the evidence that would show this?  Perhaps because the sequestered material does not support the Church's claims about Pius XII.  As we have noted, even the sanitized selection of materials that the Church has published in its collection of wartime diplomatic material is powerfully indicting of him (no matter that the Church and its defenders continue to insist, Orwellian-like, the opposite).  Why should Catholics, Jews, or anyone else continue to indulge the Church's obstinacy in not owning up to its past, as if it were an irresponsible child, rather than an almost two-millennia-old institution that teaches its members individual responsibility before God and humanity, and the necessity of doing penance before humanity as well as God?

How can this Church, with its history, continue to spread and teach demeaning notions about Jews and their religion, specifically, that Jews refuse to accept the truth that they can plainly see, that their religion has been superseded by Christianity?  The recently published new Catechism of the Catholic Church-for all of its improvements and its noticeable attempts to be as inoffensive toward and respectful of Jews as is possible within the limits of unbending doctrine-remains a supersessionist and deeply flawed document.  Echoing the Christian Bible, it asserts among other things that the Jews bear a terrible burden because they willfully insist on being an obstacle to the well-being of the rest of humanity, preventing the arrival of the Messiah and human salvation because of their 'unbelief' in Jesus.'  Half a century after the Holocaust, the Catholic Church still promulgates a doctrine that explicitly holds the Jews, in their desire to remain Jews, to be the greatest obstacle to the well-being of Christians.  The Central Committee of German Catholics, to its credit, has explicitly criticized the Catechism for this, for its replacement theology, its partly supersessionist presentation of the relationship of the Christian Bible to the Jewish Bible, and for its failure to address 'the church's anti-Judaism ...  at all,' which the German Catholics concede 'is hard to understand today.'

In 1994, at the time of the publication of the new Catechism, John Paul II further confirmed this supersessionism in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope: 'The time when the people of the Old Covenant will be able to see themselves as part of the New is, naturally, a question to be left to the Holy Spirit.'  When will the misguided Jews 'be able' to see that they must accept the divinity of Jesus?  Even the terminology that the Church uses to describe the Bibles, as 'Old' and 'New' Testaments, has a supersessionist dimension, particularly in light of the Church's centuries of teaching the 'Old' Testament as a flawed and partly superseded book that pointed the way toward the new, better dispensation of the 'New' Testament, and that heralded the coming of Jesus."

A Moral Reckoning, by Daniel Goldhagen,  pp.196-199)

In 1976, two years before he was elected to the papacy, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla visited the United States and said in his farewell speech:

"We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. . . We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel."

"John Paul II, victim of papal infallibility"
from Peter De Rosa's book, Vicars of Christ

"The latest victim of papal infallibility is John Paul II.  Convinced all popes before him were infallible, he keeps apologising for the wrong things.

He says sorry for the sins and errors of Catholics but not for the sins and errors of the Church or the popes. This is lighting a penny candle to the sun.  He seems to be guided by the appalling statement of Gregory VII: 'The Roman Church has never erred, nor can it err until the end of time.'  He is very economical with the truth, proving that papal infallibility doesn't protect the truth, it conceals the lie.  Any organisation that can't acknowledge its mistakes is doomed to repeat them over and over.

John Paul cannot bring himself to admit publicly that many of his predecessors were infallible barbarians, sex maniacs, adulterers, psychopaths, sadists who committed mass murder in the name of Christ.  Erasmus said popes of his day made war 'their only task'.  Historian von Ranke said of them,  'Even depravity may have its perfection.'

It's clear to me John Paul knows all this because he seems to have read my Vicars of Christ: the Dark Side of the Papacy(in Polish).  Afterwards, he began for the first time to speak of the dark side of Christianity, including the horrors of the Inquisition.  It would be funny if it were not so sad.  For example, he never feels able to apologise for the fact that popes were responsible for the death of millions.  These Pontiffs, reckoned to be the saintliest men of their day and often canonised, regularly created cultures of death.  Having no vices (supposedly), these holy men were able to devote themselves entirely to their crimes.  They inspired and funded wars of extermination against heretics and the madness of the Crusades which turned the Way of the Cross into the War of the Cross.  Popes made Mary patron of the Crusaders who were told to convert or kill.  On the way, they massacred hundreds of thousands of Jews.  In the first sack of Jerusalem, they butchered 70,000 inhabitants in cold blood.

Popes were chiefly responsible for 'Witch Mania'.  They labelled old women as witches and had them tortured and burned.  In some areas, women prayed to die young so they wouldn't end up on the Church's funeral pyres.  At that time, says Rollo Ahmet in The Black Art, the Church paid more attention to Satan than to Mary or Jesus.  A German historian, Horst, said popes turned Europe into 'a large madhouse for witches and devils to play their antics in'.

They inflamed hatred against Jews for being God-killers, forcing Jesus' own race to live in terror of Christian pogroms for centuries.  In our far more populous world, it gives me no joy to say that John Paul's Crusades have led to even greater inhumanity.

He teaches that sex is a beautiful gift of God.  But he can't admit that most of his predecessors taught that it's always ugly and disgusting.  Leo I (440-461) said, 'All marital intercourse is a sin,' and Innocent III (1198-1216), 'The consummation of marriage never takes place without the flames of lust.' Two 17th century popes said all foreplay, even sensuous kissing between married couples, is a grave sin.

The entire tradition was, sex outside marriage is dirty.  Within marriage it is also dirty.  The only question is the degree of dirt.  Marriage, said St Ambrose, is a crime against God in that it changed the state of virginity that God gave every creature at birth.  During intercourse, couples should keep their minds on Jesus and the stork.  All sex is pornographic, destined to deprave and corrupt.  It cannot be spiritualised.  Sex, said Augustine, the converted fornicator, must not be sexy.  Nuns mustn't eat beans, Jerome decided, because they titillate the genitals.  Today, we would send these holy popes and theologians to a sex-therapist.

John Paul praises the sanctity of marriage but can't admit that for centuries his predecessors thought it so lewd that it was never blessed by the church.  At best, couples gave their legal consent outside the church, and never with the blessing of the clergy.  As Chaucer's Wife of Bath, first married at twelve, put it,  'Five husbands have I had at the church door.'  How could clerics bless a thing so sinful they couldn't indulge in it?  Marriage was too sordid to be a sacrament until the 16th century.

Like Paul VI, John Paul tries to choreograph what couples do in bed by promoting sex during 'the safe period'.  This is a bizarre idea in that human females, unlike animals, seldom know when they're infertile even after using thermometers, calendars and higher mathematics.  A case of sexual hide-and-seek.  Couples had better be as accurate as a Mafia hit-man.

The method might have suited clever cloistered nuns, not busy mothers, many of whom can't read or write and perhaps have no electric light.  If safety belts in cars were as safe as the safe period they would be outlawed.  What the Pope can never bring himself to concede was that nearly all pontiffs condemned the safe period or what we might call 'sex for fun'.  Their view was clear: sex has only one purpose, procreation.  To have sex and not intend a child, worse, to have sex and intend not to have a child is to commit adultery with one's wife. 

John Paul teaches that a human being exists from the first moment of conception, hence every abortion, even of a three day embryo, is murder.  Not essentially different from what Jack the Ripper did or Timothy McVeigh.  Very well, but why did he not admit that nearly all his predecessors said the opposite.

He teaches that every embryo and fetus is an innocent human being.  Why doesn't he say that most of his predecessors said explicitly that every unbaptised infant, far from being innocent, is stained with original sin, a kind of venereal disease?  Each babe, as part of the massa damnata, is under the devil's dominion so that if it dies unbaptized, they are so disgusting to God they cannot look at him, nor can he at them, for all eternity.  Not that tradition ever explained how Adam could hand on original sin when sin is in the soul and the soul comes not from parents but directly from God.

John Paul teaches that only celibacy is in tune with the sacrament of holy order, conveniently forgetting that Jesus chose married men as his apostles.  Also, if Peter were to return to earth today, not being one of the Pope's castrati, John Paul would have declared him unfit to serve as a curate in a city slum.

He teaches that capital punishment even of mass-murderers or serial-killers is wrong, cruel and unusual.  But John Paul never dares to admit that the popes invented the murderous Inquisition which Ahmet called 'the most pitiless and ferocious institution the world has ever known'.  Nor that in 1572, when Gregory XIII heard that Catholics had massacred 20,000 French Protestant Huguenots on the Eve of St Bartholomew, he sang the Te Deum.

John Paul also fails to mentions that popes, through their aggression, not only caused wars but led armies into battle.  Innocent I said God gave him the right to kill the guilty, meaning heretics.  According to accounts in the papal treasury, Pope John XXII spent 63% of his resources on war.  It has been reckoned that pagan emperors spilled less than one ten-thousandth of the Christian blood shed later by Christians themselves.

It would seem that since all popes were infallible, the wickedness of the Roman Church can only be corrected by pretending that no pope ever did anything wrong in the first place, ever ordered Catholics with the full weight of Christ's authority to do anything wrong.  According to John Paul, only certain 'misguided' Christians were responsible.

After reading John Paul's many sorry attempts to say sorry, one is left with the impression of a huge con-trick on the part of the Vatican.  Partly because of its power and longevity, partly because it has always been reactionary, no institution has made more murderous mistakes than the papacy  – though to hear the Pope speak you'd think it never made a single one.–   One of history's big thumping lies is that the Church of Rome has never changed its teaching when it's hard to find any that have remained constant.  Why all these papal lies and half-truths?  Moreover, why 'purify memory' and make no attempt to purify the Church's present evils?

Why, for instance, has John Paul kept silent about the biggest crisis to hit the Church since the Reformation, namely, the massive sexual abuse of children by priests?  Also, the rape of nuns by priests that sometimes led to HIV infection and enforced abortions?  Priests, unlike doctors, bankers and lawyers who had broken the rules of their profession, were allowed to go on practising as priests, sometimes in new dioceses, abusing even more children?  Why still no call from the Vatican to hand these criminals over to the police?  In 1994, the Pope's spokesman, Dr Joachin Navarro-Valls, astonishingly blamed the media for the sins of the fathers, forgetting these crimes went back over forty years.  Is John Paul's silence, only matched by Pius XII's silence on the Holocaust, due to the fact that he cannot bear to draw attention to the present crimes of the celibate priesthood so dear to his heart?

Why cannot he see also that his own more liberal views on Jews and ecumenism, freedom of conscience and the press, would have been condemned as heretical and blasphemous by all 19th century popes?  Maybe he does see but made up his mind not to learn from it.  He blames others for being à la carte Catholics when he is the pick of the bunch.

The problem for John Paul II is this: if his predecessors made appalling and murderous blunders, how can Catholics be sure that when he bans condoms which might prevent millions dying he is teaching divine truth?  Cast any doubt on the reliability of the Pope's authority and the whole pack of cards falls.  This was the real reason why Paul VI banned contraception, even though almost every member of his commission said the ban should be ended.  He chose papal authority in preference to mercy.  The bad myth of papal infallibility led to a complete disregard for truth at the highest level and caused incredible pain to millions of people."

Peter de Rosa wrote Vicars of Christ: the Dark Side of the Papacy.

"Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power
in the Papacy of John Paul II" by Jason Berry

In this important book", Roman Catholic authors Jason Berry and Gerald Renner document the puzzling relationship between a Pope who condemns homosexuality and won't consider permitting priests to marry and Father Marcial Maciel, an accused pedophile and founder of the militaristic religious order, the Legion of Christ.

One of the most mysterious and powerful men in the Catholic Church, Maciel has built a network of priests, lay people, and elite prep schools in more than twenty countries, using the Legion as a fundraising machine to position himself as a favored figure of John Paul II.  See Reviews of Vows of Silence at Barnes & Noble.

At one point, it appeared that the investigation by the Vatican of Father Maciel had been dropped.  But now (as of Jan. 2005), according to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_10_41/ai_n11829907 , the investigation is back on.

"The canonization of Pope John Paul II is an issue which concerns not only Catholics, but all traditionalist conservatives. For better or for worse (depending on one's religious outlook), the Catholic Church is the largest religious institution on the planet, and historically regarded as a fairly conservative one. The Washington Times recently named Pope Benedict the de facto leader of world conservatism. Just as conservatives do not wish to see their foundational principles redefined by the nomination and election of conservatives-in-name-only, so the canonization of the late Pope would represent (among other things) his church's influential imprimatur on a model of Christian pastorship that has eroded the foundational conservative principles of one of the world's oldest and most venerable conservative institutions." from August 14, 2009.

Why Pope John Paul II should not be canonized
by Eric Giunta

From Dom Hélder Câmara's obituary, written by Beatriz Lecumberri for Agence France Presse:  "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint," he said once. "When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."  However, his influence began to decline when John Paul II became pope in 1978, and began clamping down on the liberal and often Marxist-influenced teachings of liberation theology.  He retired as bishop in 1985, and was replaced by conservative traditionalist José Cardoso Sobrinho, who began to reverse many of Camara's reforms.

In October of 1999 ''Frontline'' aired a 2 1/2 hour broadcast on the impact of ''John Paul II: The Millennial Pope.'' : in which it reported:

"he stumbled in fighting ''liberation'' theology of many priests and bishops in Latin America who felt that the church had aligned itself with the rich and powerful against the poor. He snubbed Bishop Oscar Romero, who warned that there was a danger that his country could become communist.

"Holy See" ?
    Isn't it amusing how English-speaking Catholic churchmen insist on translating the Latin "Sancta Sedes" into the meaningless "Holy See", instead of the correct, but silly–sounding "Holy Seat"?

a papal throne

The pope told him not to exaggerate his claims of right wing terror, adding ''You have to be very careful with communism.'' Romero left Rome in tears and one month later was assassinated while he was saying Mass."

When visiting Central America in 1996, Pope John Paul II said that "the era of Liberation Theology" ended with the fall of Communism in the world.

But despite these words, some followers of this current are still active within the Latin American Church - for this was the region which first produced Liberation Theology in the sixties, based on the social considerations raised by the Second Vatican Council, a strain which flourished spectacularly in the seventies and eighties.

Priests affiliated to Liberation Theology fought against the Somoza family dictatorship in Nicaragua and then took public posts in the Sandinista government, earning them a harsh reprimand from the Pope and the suspension of their religious vows.

Then there were Bishop Oscar Romero - who campaigned for the poor of El Salvador earning him assassination at the hands of a death squad in 1980 - and Bishop Leonidas Proano - taken prisoner and persecuted by the military in the seventies for his support the indigenous people.

Liberation theologists (theologians) lobby to free people from poverty, and they are opposed to religion directing its doctrine only to the internal and individual concerns of believers.  Supporters of the tendency today include Bishop Ruiz, of Chiapas, whom the Vatican has reprimanded several times for his alleged "deviations," Brazil's Pedro Casaldaliga and one of the two vice-presidents of the Latin American Episcopal Council, Luciano Mendez de Almeida, another Brazilian.

However, Mexican bishop Javier Lozano sustains that, given the failure of Marxism, "it would be the height of foolishness, ignorance or the malice of some religious leaders to continue sustaining Liberation Theology."

( from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/40/096.html )

Although Pope John Paul II saw world poverty as a grave problem, he was so averse to "Communism" that he rejected all socialist approaches to large scale systematic problems, thereby reinforcing many of the forces that create or aggravate world poverty.  Shortly after the pope humiliated and stiff-armed Liberation Theology's most illustrious representative, Archbishop Romero was assassinated while celebrating mass.  Instead of seeing the realization of the promise of Jesus that his followers would suffer just such a fate, the Pope moved to close down all of the institutions promoting Liberation Theology and replaced its leaders with the kind of Conservative prelates who would appease Archbishop Romero's ultra-Conservative assassins.

        See this very good history of Liberation Theology in South America.
  • Vatican  City, Feb. 1,2001 " Stressing again the Vatican's opposition to gay marriage, Pope John Paul II today said there was no possibility the church would redefine its view of matrimony.


    "Marriage is not just any old union between human persons, susceptible to being configured according to a plurality of cultural models," the pope said in a speech to the Roman Rota, the Vatican tribunal that can grant marriage annulments.   In November, the Vatican blasted lawmakers for giving legal recognition to so-called de facto unions " including those between homosexuals " and said attempts to allow adoption by gays were "a great danger."  That Vatican document reflected denunciations over the past several years by the pontiff.

    Cracks In Vatican Anti-Gay Stance
    by Malcolm Thornberry

    Posted (Madrid): May 5, 2004

    "The papal ambassador to Spain has made a stunning admission:  The Vatican made a mistake in not supporting same-sex couples.

    It is the first time that a high ranking official in the Catholic Church has questioned the official position that gay relationships are "evil and deviant" and indicates, Church-watchers say, a major crack in what was until now considered an impenetrable wall of opposition to gay unions.

    "The new political situation in which we are living in Spain sets new challenges in the spreading of the gospel and we must meet those challenges in an appropriate manner," Monsignor Manuel Monteiro de Castro told a conference of Spanish bishops.

    The speech shocked some in the audience, surprised the government, and gave hope to thousands of gay couples in what is considered Europe's most Catholic country. . .

    Last month (April, 2004) the Spanish government formally announced it will bring in legislation to legalize same-sex marriage."

    For "the rest of the story", see
  • "The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia"
    by Paul L. Williams ( Hardcover Book by Prometheus Books).

    During the late 1970´s and early 1980´s, the Vatican´s finances were in the hands of Cardinal Paul Marcinkus, no saint, who entrusted the Holy See ´s investments to Roberto Calvi and Michele Sidona, both of whom were Mafia-connected bankers.  Their corruption lead to the collapse of the Banco Ambrosiano in 1982 and caused the exposure of one of the greatest scandals in Papal history.

    Pope Benedict XVI

    Ever since Adolf Hitler's defeat, the Catholic Church has been trying to distance itself from Hitler, but that is the very opposite of what it did when he had the power to help his friends and to hurt his enemies

    As this Holocaust survivor explained, As a Catholic school girl growing up in World War II Vienna, Austria, Helena Zuber lived each day in fear of the ruling Nazi regime, remembering the feeling that she was 'under a microscope all day and all night.'

    Nazi guards sat in the corner of her high school classrooms to monitor students and teachers. Not knowing who she could trust, she couldn't even tell her parents where she was going when she left the house to go out with friends."

    The problem with Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) isn't that he was a member of the "Nazi Youth", but that from age 6 on, Ratzinger was educated in an educational system that was subsidized by the Nazi state. The Catholic Church knew that it could only teach from the pulpit and in its classrooms what met the approval of the Nazi government.  Young Ratzinger may have, as he now claims, been an unwilling member of the Hitler youth, but he is still a product of the times, times when his church had to choose between playing the role of prophet or being quiet in order to continue collecting the generous subsidy that Hitler's government provided for its personel and for its institutions, with the control which those subsidies gave the Nazis over the "confessional" schools and even their seminaries.  If the Nazis had not approved of the training that young Ratzinger received in his German Catholic seminary, that institution would have been closed in the blinking of an eye.

    See JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/RCscandal.html.
    and also :
    Benedict's apology for the Holocaust

    The following is a summary of a lengthy interview published in one of the largest Spanish daily papers, "El Paris," on November 7, 1984."

    In Latin America the crisis is due, according to Ratzinger, to "Marxist influences," and affirms that dialogue with the liberation theologians is impossible since "they accept as fact the illusionary goal of utilizing the class struggle as a means of achieving reforms and eliminating misery and injustice."  In Europe and the United States, the crisis lies in "permissive morality" and blames North American theologians, "who have not been capable of defending Catholic ethics as being reasonable."

    What we need badly now, says Ratzinger, is to create bishops "who are capable of opposing with strength the negative worldly tendencies," in as much as "he is totally ignorant of the nature of the Church and the nature of the world, who believes that these two can meet without conflict or that they be somehow mixed." Therefore we must urgently oppose "the many worldly cultural tendencies adopted by post-conciliar euphoria."

    Extremely harsh also were the words used by Ratzinger in passing judgment on other religions: "After the Council," he says, "their value has been over emphasized; paganism painted as being serene and innocent is one of the illusions of our time.  In fact, there exists the active presence of the devil, and from this only Christ can free us.  For this reason we must continue to preach Christianity to these non-Christian religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Budhism, Mormanism) which are in many instances reigns of terror."

    [ from www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1984_December/Article_Interest.htm ]

            When the sex scandals erupted around the world at the turn of the millennium, here was Ratzinger's response:
    Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret
    by Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
    (for The Observer of London, U.K. )
    Sunday April 24, 2005

    Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.  The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.  It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood.

    Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police ( i.e. secular authorities).  They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.

    Ratzinger's letter states. . .  the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.  It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

    'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes.  Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

    [from http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html ]

    One of Pope Benedict's first public positions was to oppose Spain's efforts to treat its gay citizens fairly.

    For much, much more on the fraudulency of the claims of "Holy Mother the Church" see http://JesusWouldBeFurious.Org/

    The site below is an evaluation of Pope Benedict XVI. The contrast between its honesty and generosity toward this "enemy" of atheists and the dishonesty of so many Catholic sites is amazing:
    [Was Joseph Ratzinger a Nazi?.

    Carol Ritter, a Catholic nun in the US who is a specialist in Holocaust and genocide studies, urged Pope Benedict not to use his May 2009 trip to Israel as an attempt at damage control.
            "He should go as a penitent pilgrim. He should ask for forgiveness, he should go to learn and listen and not necessarily to pontificate, he should go with humility," she said. "It's a bit disingenuous to say he didn't know about Williamson when he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which had been dealing with the Lefebvrists [a breakaway group of traditionalist clerics] from the very beginning."
    [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/05/pope-benedict-jerusalem-religion ]

    This is just one of the many unique,
    truth-filled and insightful pages
    Click on this banner
    Click on this banner to see the whole picture!
    email image
    contact David@CatholicArrogance.Org