Some comments from the UK
Poor sod….. he must have thought he was doing good for his country (which he was)
and this is the kicking he got
God forbid if you grow up free thinking and with respect for your “true” nation and realise what the government is up to
I just wish this was reported more and more people were outraged
Always hits the target . The images Steve Bell so often produces in one picture , captures the chaotic thoughts of many and remain a recurring image throughout the day and sometimes beyond . One cartoon = a thousand Editorials . Thanks Mr Bell…….few always hit the target every time….you do !
Revolution next year, Manning freed, Snowden brought home a hero, Chomsky as President… bankers tried and their assets seized, mass arrests of Congress and the Senate, the trial of Obama, revolution spreads across the Atlantic… one can dream. :]
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Blair/Brown convicted of genocide charges,
NSA/CIA/FBI disbanded, and senior leaders imprisoned for life, IRS scrapped, religion outlawed, Supreme Court replaced with socialists, American workers party elected with huge majority in both Houses, income taxes on those earning over $300,000/year increased to 105%, US Military size cut by 80%, all Nuclear Weapons scrapped,
all nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines scuttled by their crews,
Size of US General staff cut by 90%, Communist Asian Woman President elected, Pentagon reconstructed as two dimensional building…..
oh the orgasmic pleasure of it all would be Heaven on Earth
The Murphy Report was published in 2009, following an investigation into child sexual abuse by priests in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. At the time of its publication, certain material was held back for legal reasons. The redacted Chapter 19was published in December 2010, and now Chapter 20 has been released and it paints a horrifying picture. The archbishops of Dublin were not only aware that their priests were raping children but, despite the impression they sought to create in subsequent years, were also fully aware that the activities of those priests were criminal in nature.
They failed to report the crimes to our national police force, but perhaps there was no point, since the report accuses that police force of connivance, of stifling complaints and failing to investigate others. It describes the decision by the Gardai to permit an abuser to leave the country as shocking. Crucially, it points out that, but for information uncovered in diocesan files, it would not have been aware of the Garda role in covering up the crimes of child sex abuse. In other words, our national police force failed to cooperate with the investigation of a monumental crime. This failure is not something that happened in the distant past. Within the last decade, senior gardai were conniving to frustrate an official investigation into the activities of sex-abusing clerics and it’s highly likely that many of these people are still in office.
Coming in a week when we learn that a member of our parliament wrote to a bishop before voting on a government bill, this is highly disturbing. To what extent does this official deference still survive?
Read more at
One wonders how many Catholic youths are schooled in the crimes of the Popes. You can be sure they are well learned in doctrine of Papal infallibility
CRIMES OF THE POPES
A summary of the crimes and vices with which many of the
popes disgraced the chair of St. Peter; and before we conclude, the reader will see
that every villainy the imagination can conceive has been practised by the
Vicegerents of God. Peculation, theft, cruelty, murder, fornication, adultery, and
incest, not to mention still darker crimes, have all been notoriously committed by
the supreme rulers of Christendom, who sat in the seat of infallibility, and claimed
universal jurisdiction over the thoughts and consciences of mankind.
ST. DAMASUS (366-84).
He was the first to assume the title of Pontiff. His
election was opposed by Ursicinus, whose partisans accused Damasus of
adultery. [1 22:1 ] Riddle says:
“After some deadly conflicts between the followers of the two rivals,
Ursicinus was banished from the city; and a similar sentence was about
to be carried into effect against seven presbyters of his party, when the
people interfered, and lodged them for safety in one of the churches.
But even here they found no shelter from the fury of their opponents.
Armed with fire and sword, Damasus, with some of his adherents, both
of the clergy and of the laity, proceeded to the place of refuge, and left
no less than a hundred and sixty of their adversaries dead within the
sacred precincts.” [1 22:2]
That this was a massacre and not a faction fight is shown by the fact that on the
side of Damasus not a single person was killed. [1 23:3] Ammianus Marcellinus, the
contemporary historian of the event, says of the contention between Damasus and
“I do not deny, when I consider the ostentation that reigns at Rome,
that those who desire such rank and power may be justified in laboring
with all possible exertions and vehemence to obtain their wishes; since
after they have succeeded, they will be secure for the future, being
enriched by offerings from matrons, riding in carriages, dressing
splendidly, and feasting luxuriously, so that their entertainment
surpassed even royal banquets. [1 23:4]
Damasus gained the title of Auriscalpius Matronarum, ladies’ ear-scratcher. [1 23:5]
He died of fever, and the Romish Church still invokes the aid of this saintly vicar of
God in fever cases. [1 23:6]
SIXTUS III (432-40).
This pope, according to both Baronius and Platina, was
accused of debauching a virgin, but was acquitted by a Council under the Emperor
Valentina, who is said to have referred the pronouncing of the sentence to the Pope
himself, “because the judge of all ought to be judged by none.” It was without
doubt to establish this maxim that the “acts” of the Council were forged. [1 23:7 ]
ST. LEO THE GREAT (440-61).
Jortin calls him “the insolent and persecuting
Pope Leo, who applauded the massacre of the Priscillianists, and grossly
misrepresented them.” [1 23:8]
His election was violently opposed by the antipope
Laurentius, and three Councils were held to decide the schism. Accusations of the
most heinous crimes were laid against Symmachus. Bower says:
“This gave occasion to the rekindling of the war between the two
parties in Rome; and several priests, many clerks, and a great number
of citizens, fell daily in the battles that were fought in the different parts
of the city. No regard was shown by either party to rank or dignity; and
not even the sacred virgins were spared by the enraged multitude in
their fury.” [1 23:9]
Eunodius declared that the Pope was “judge in the place of the most high, pure
from all sin, and exempt from all punishment. All who fell fighting in his cause he
declared enrolled on the register of heaven.” [1 24:1 ]
ST. HORMISDAS (514-23).
He was a married man, and had a son, who was raised
to the popedom. He was full of ambition, and insolent in his demands to the
emperor, whom he exhorted to the persecution of heretics.
BONIFACE II (530-32).
His election was disputed by the antipope Dioscorus. Each
accused the other of simony, but Dioscorus opportunely died. Boniface “began his
pontificate with wreaking his vengeance on the memory of his deceased
competitor, whom he solemnly excommunicated, as guilty of simony, when he
could not clear himself from the charge, nor retort it on him, as perhaps he
otherwise might.” [1 24:2] This sentence was removed by Pope Agapetus.
He was accused of betraying the city of Rome to the Goths,
and was in consequence expelled from his see.
He was a deacon elected by bribery. He engaged himself to
obey the Empress Theodora, who gave him money to gain the suffrages of the
clergy. Anastasius tells us that he killed his own secretary in a transport of passion,
and caused his own sister’s son to be whipped to death. He is considered to have
been accessory to the banishment and death of Silverius. When banished himself
by the emperor, he speedily repented, in order to save his seat.
He was accused of poisoning his predecessor. This is
uncertain; but it is certain that, like most of his predecessors and successors, he
incited the civil powers to the persecution of heretics.
ST. GREGORY THE GREAT (590-604)
According to Gibbon, this pontiff was “a
singular mixture of simplicity and cunning, of pride and humility, of sense and
superstition.” [1 24:3] Jortin’s picture is still less flattering:
“Pope Gregory the Great was remarkable for many things — for
exalting his own authority; for running down human learning [1 25:4]
and polite literature; for burning classic authors; for patronising
ignorance and stupidity; for persecuting heretics; for flattering the
most execrable princes; and for relating a multitude of absurd,
monstrous and ridiculous lies, called miracles. He was an ambitious,
insolent prelate, under the mask of humility.”
Draper says that Gregory not only forbade the study of the classics, mutilated
statues, and destroyed temples but also “burned the Palatine library, founded by
Augustus Caesar.” Gibbon, however, throws doubt on this destruction, while
admitting that it was generally believed. [1 25:6]
Gregory does not appear to have been fond of women and wine, like so many other
popes; but he possessed the darker vices of bigotry and ambition. His
congratulations on the usurpation of the cruel, drunken and lascivious Phocas, after
a wholesale massacre of the emperor’s family, simply because the successful villain
favored the pretensions of Rome (p. 109), are a sufficient proof that Gregory would
scruple at nothing to advance the glory of his see.
Bower says he rendered himself so odious to the Roman
people by his avarice and cruelty to the poor, that they could not forbear abusing
him whenever he appeared. In a dreadful famine he raised the price of corn to
exorbitant rates. He accused St. Gregory of simony; but according to Baronius,
that departed saint having vainly reproved him in three different apparitions for
his covetousness, gave him in a fourth apparition so dreadful a blow on the head,
that he died soon after. [1 25:7 ]
BONIFACE III (607)
By flattering Phocas as Gregory had done, he induced him to
take the title of universal bishop from the bishop of Constantinople, and confer it
upon himself and his successors.
He commenced the custom of dipping his pen in
consecrated wine when signing the condemnation of heretics, [1 26:8] thus
sanctifying murder with the blood of Christ. Of Adeodatus, Donus I, Agatho, and
Leo II (682-683)
we only know that they carried on fierce contests with the archbishop of
Ravenna for refusing to acknowledge their supremacy. Leo II anathematised his
predecessor, Pope Honorius, for heresy. Neither Benedict II, John V, nor
Conon, lived a whole year after assuming the tiara.
ST. SERGIUS I (687-701).
He had to purchase his seat from the exarch of
Ravenna by pawning the ornaments of the tomb of St. Peter. He was accused of
adultery, but his innocence was strikingly proved; for, upon the child of whose
parentage he was accused being baptised when but eight days old, he cried out,
“The pontiff Sergius is not my father.” Bruys, the French historian of the Papacy,
says, “What I find most marvellous in this story is, not that so young a child should
speak, but that it should affirm with so much confidence that the pope was not its
He is said to have excommunicated the Emperor, Philip
Bardanes, for being of the same heresy as Pope Honorius. To oblige Constantine,
Justinian II cut out the tongue and blinded the eyes of the Archbishop of Ravenna,
who refused to pay the obedience due to the apostolic see. [1 26:2]
ST. GREGORY II (715-31). He was chiefly noted for his endowing monasteries
with the goods of the poor, and for his opposition to the Emperor Leo’s edict
against image worship. [1 26:3] Rather than obey the edict, he raised civil war both
in Italy and elsewhere. He prayed that Christ might set the Devil on the emperor,
and approved the barbarous murder of the imperial officer. Yet the priests
place in the list of saints a pontiff who, to establish the Christian idolatry of image
worship, filled Italy with carnage.
STEPHEN III (768-72).
When elected he found on the pontifical throne a lay pope,one Constantine, who, after a violent struggle, was dislodged and punished with the
loss of his eyes, many of his friends sharing the same fate.
ADRIAN I (772-95)
He made a league with Irene, the murderess of her son, to
restore image worship, and presented to Charlemagne the pretended donation of
Constantine. Avarice was the vice of this able pontiff. He left large sums to
ST. PASCAL I (817-24)
At the Diet of Compeigne this pope was charged with
being accessory to the mutilation and murder of two Roman priests. The Pope
denied the charge, but refused to deliver up the perpetrators of the crimes,
alleging that they belonged “to the family of St. Peter.”
EUGENIUS II (824-27)
He had the honor of inventing the barbarous practice of
ordeal by cold water.
He excommunicated Photius, the Greek patriarch, and the
emperor Michael as his abettor, and threatened King Lothaire with the
ecclesiastical sword if he suffered any bishop to be chosen without his
consent. [1 27 :9]
ADRIAN II (867-72) He was a married priest. He congratulated Bazilius, the
murderer of the emperor Michael, and entered into alliance with him.
JOHN VIII (872-82)
The meek and holy nature of this worthy successor of St.
Peter may be judged by his ordering the Bishop of Naples to bring him the chief
men among the Saracens in that city, and cutting their throats in the presence of
his legate. A letter of John is extant, in which he justifies Athanasius, Bishop
of Naples, for having plucked out the eyes of Sergius, Duke of Naples, who favored
the Saracens in despite of the papal anathemas. He even cites the Gospel text as to
plucking out offending eyes. Cardinal Baronius declares that this pontiff perjured
himself, and that he rather deserved the name of a woman than that of a
man. The annals of the Abbey of Fulda relate that John VIII was poisoned
by the relations of a lady whom he had seduced from her husband.
He had been repeatedly excommunicated by John VIII. He
invited Arnulf, the German emperor, to invade Italy, which he did, committing
great atrocities. Formosus, however, had a great character for piety. He is said to
have been well versed in scripture, and to have died a virgin in his eightieth year.
BONIFACE VI (896)
Even according to Baronius, he was a man of most infamous
character. He had been deposed for his scandalous life, first from the rank of subdeacon,
and afterward from the priesthood.
STEPHEN VI. (896-7)
He intruded into the see in the room of the intruder
Boniface. Being of the opposite faction to Pope Formosus, he caused the body of
that pontiff to be taken out of the tomb and to be placed, in the episcopal robes, on
the pontifical chair. Stephen then addressed the dead body thus: “Why didst thou,
being Bishop of Porto, prompted by thy ambition, usurp the universal see of
Rome?” After this mock trial Stephen, with the approbation and consent of a
Council of bishops, ordered the body to be stripped, three of the fingers (those
used in blessing) to be cut off, and the remains to be cast into the Tiber. At the
same Council all the ordinations of Formosus were declared invalid.
Then followed what Riddle calls “a rapid succession of infamous popes,” of whom
we may mention that Leo V (903) was deposed and cast into prison by his
chaplain, Christopher, who was in turn ejected and imprisoned by Sergius III
(904-11). This pontiff also had been excommunicated by John VIII. He was, says
Baronius, “the slave of every vice and the most wicked of men.” Riddle
“This Sergius III was a monster of profligacy, cruelty and vice in their most
shameless and disgusting forms. But it was this very character which made him
useful to his party, the duration of whose influence at Rome, could be insured only
by a preponderance of physical power, and this again only by violence which should
disdain all restraints of morality and religion. Sergius was the man for this purpose,
who, while he lived in concubinage with Marozia, did not hesitate to yield all the
treasures of the Roman Church as plunder to his party.” To him succeeded
other paramours of Marozia and of her mother the prostitute Theodora. John X,
for instance (914-28), received his chair because he was the lover of Theodora,
while Leo VI and Stephen VIII (929-31) were creatures of Marozia. Adultery and
assassination form the staple of the annals of their pontificates.
JOHN XI (931-36)
He was the son of Pope Sergius III. by Marozia, and if possible
he surpassed his parents in crime. Elected pope at the age of eighteen, Alberic, his
half brother, expelled him from Rome and imprisoned their mother Marozia.
Stephen VIII (939-942) made himself so obnoxious to the Romans that they
JOHN XII (956-64)
the son of Alberic, was the first to change his name, which
was originally Octavian. He nominated himself pope at the age of seventeen. Wilks
says: “His profaneness and debaucheries exceeded all bounds. He was publicly
accused of concubinage, incest, and simony.” This pope was so notorious for his
licentiousness that female pilgrims dared not present themselves in Rome.
Bower says that he had changed the Lateran Palace, once the abode of saints, into
a brothel, and there cohabited with his father’s concubine; that women were afraid
to come from other countries to visit the tombs of the apostles at Rome; that he
spared none, and had within a few days forced married women, widows, and
virgins to comply with his impure desires. He was at length deposed by Otho, at
the solicitation of a council of bishops and laymen, on charges of sacrilege, simony,
blasphemy, and cruel mutilation. He had deprived one deacon of his right hand and
made him a eunuch. He put out the eyes of Benedict, his ghostly father, cut off the
nose of the keeper of the archives, and scourged the Bishop of Spires. On
the deposition of John, Leo VII was put in his place. John fulminated anathemas
against his opponents, and soon after died, from a blow on the head while in bed
with a married woman. Jortin remarks that “Baronius says, from
Luitprandus, that it was the Devil who gave John that blow; but it seems not
probable that Satan would have used his good friend in such a manner. It is more
likely that it might be the husband of the adulteress.”
Mosheim says “that the history of the Roman pontiffs of this century [the tenth] is
a history of monsters, a history of the most atrocious villainies and crimes, is
acknowledged by all writers of distinction, and even by the advocates of
BONIFACE VII (974)
The old authors in derision call him Maliface. Having had his
predecessor Benedict murdered, he plundered the Basilica and escaped with his
spoils to Constantinople, whence he afterwards returned and murdered John XIV
(984), then on the papal throne.
GREGORY V (996-99)
He was turned out of his see by Crescentius, who elected
the antipope John. Upon Gregory’s restoration he had this unfortunate creature
deprived of sight, cut off his nose, and tore out his tongue. He then ordered him to
be led through the streets in a tattered sacerdotal suit, and mounted upon an ass
with his face to the tail, which he held in his hand.
SERGIUS IV (1009-12)
This pope was called Os Porci, or Swine’s Mouth. Of his
doings little is known, but he is asserted to have gravely declared “that the pope
could not be damned, but that, do what he would, he must be saved.”
BENEDICT VIII (1012-24)
He saved the city of Rome from a great storm, which
it seems was caused by some Jews. The Jews being immediately executed the
JOHN XIX (1024-33)
He was a layman, brother of Benedict, yet he was raised to
the see. Wilks says:
“It was by gold, and not by imperial power, that the Romans consented
to this uncanonical election. The rapacity of this pope was so great that
he offered to sell the title of ‘Universal Bishop’ to the see of
Constantinople for a sum of money!”
By his exactions, debauchery and tyranny, he became so odious to the Romans
that he had to flee for his life.
BENEDICT IX (1033-46)
A nephew of the last two pontiffs. Some say he was
raised to the papacy at the age of twelve — others, at eighteen. He “stained the
sacred office with murder, adultery, and every other heinous crime.” [1 31 :1 ]
Desiderius, afterwards pope under the name of Victor III, styles Benedict the
successor of Simon the sorcerer, and not of Simon the apostle, and paints him as
one abandoned to all manner of vice. Being eager to possess the person and
property of a female cousin, he sold the papacy to John Gratianus, “the most
religious man of his time,” for a sum of money, and consecrated him as Gregory VI.
Benedict afterwards poisoned Pope Damasus II. The Romans, weary of his crimes,
expelled him from the city, but he was reinstated by Conrad. “But,” says Jortin,
“as he continued his scandalous course of life, and found himself despised and
detested both by clergy and laity, he agreed to retire, and to abandon himself more
freely to his pleasures.” Stipulating therefore to receive a sum of money, he
resigned his place to Gratianus, called Gregory VI, and went to live in his own
Mosheim calls Benedict IX “a most flagitious man and capable of every
We have already seen how Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory, were alike declared
unworthy of the pontificate, and Clement placed in the see, and by what means
Hildebrand contrived to extend the papal power. This great pontiff, Gregory VII
(1073-85), has been accused of poisoning his predecessors in order to obtain the
popedom, and also of committing adultery with Matilda, Countess of Tuscany, who
bestowed all her possessions on the pope. But these accusations probably arose
from the spite of the many enemies aroused by Hildebrand’s high-handed
PASCAL II (1099-1118)
He was a disciple of Hildebrand, and inherited his
ambition without his talents. He compelled Henry IV to abdicate, but on his son
Henry V marching against him, after a sanguinary struggle, he gave up to the
emperor the right of investiture. Afterwards he excommunicated all who should
declare his own grant to be valid.
ADRIAN IV (1154-59)
The only Englishman who ever became pope. He caused
Arnold of Brescia to be burnt at the stake (1154) for preaching against papal
corruption. The Irish should remember that it was this pope who, in virtue of the
pretended Donation of Constantine, made over to Henry II of England the right to
take and govern Ireland on condition of the pope receiving an annual tribute of one
penny for each house.
ALEXANDER III (1159-81)
The Lateran Council (1179) declared war against all
heretics, and a crusade against them was sanctioned by this pontiff.
CLEMENT III (1188-1191). He published the third crusade (1189).
INNOCENT III (1198-1216) also preached a crusade. He claimed for his see
universal empire and established the Inquisition to support the claim. He
excommunicated Philip II of France and put the whole nation under interdict.
Afterwards he placed England under interdict, excommunicated John, bestowed
the crown on Philip of France, and published a crusade against England. He also
instituted a crusade against the Albigenses, butchering them by tens of thousands
with every circumstance of atrocity.
GREGORY IX (1227-41).
He formally established the Inquisition; and, to support
his ambition and the unbridled luxury of his court, raised taxes in France, England
and Germany, excommunicated kings, and incited nations to revolt; finally causing
himself to be driven from Rome.
INNOCENT IV (1243-54).
He conspired against the life of the Emperor Frederic,
through the agency of the Franciscan monks. To avoid confronting his accuser, he
retired to France, summoned a council at Lyons (1244), and excommunicated and
deposed the emperor, whom he coolly denominated his vassal. He also
excommunicated the kings of Arragon and Portugal, giving the crown of the latter
to the Count of Bologna. He persecuted the Ghibellines, and pretending to have the
right of disposing of the crown of the two Sicilies, offered it to Richard, Earl of
Cornwall, brother to Henry III of England. Innocent made exorbitant claims to the
bishoprics and benefices in England. [1 33:1 ]
BONIFACE VIII (1294-1303).
He had his predecessor, Celestine, put in prison,
where he died. [1 33:2] He openly styled himself “King of Kings,” trafficked in
indulgences, and declared all excluded from heaven who disputed his claim to
universal dominion. He persecuted the Ghibellines, and ordered the city of
Bragneste to be entirely destroyed. He was publicly accused of simony,
assassination, usury, of living in concubinage with his two nieces and having
children by them, and of using the money received for indulgences to pay the
Saracens for invading Italy.
CLEMENT V (1305-1314)
He is noted for his cruel suppression of the order of
Knights Templar, so as to appropriate their property. He summoned the grand
master of the Templars under false pretexts to his court, and issued a bull against
the order in which he brought against it the most unfounded and absurd charges,
and finally pronounced its abolition, having the Grand Master and many leading
members burnt alive. [1 34:4] After sharing the spoils of the Templars with the king
of France, Clement V fixed his court at Avignon, and gave himself publicly to the
most criminal debaucheries. He preached a new crusade against the Turks and
gave each new crusader the right to release four souls from purgatory. Dante
places him in hell.
JOHN XXII (1316-34)
Like his predecessors, he persecuted and burnt heretics.
He anathematised the emperor of Germany and the king of France, and preached
a new crusade. Money was raised in abundance by the sale of indulgences, and was
misappropriated by the pope. He left enormous treasures. Villani, whose brother
was one of the papal commission, states that this successor of the fisherman
amassed altogether twenty-five million florins. [1 34:5] Gieseler says: “He
arbitrarily disposed of the Benefices of all countries, chiefly in favor of his own
nephews, and the members of his curia.”
URBAN VI (1378-89)
In his time occurred what is known as “the great Western
schism,” which lasted from 1378 till the Council of Constance (1414). There were
during that time two popes, one residing at Rome and the other at Avignon. But
which of the popes was the true one and which the antipope has not yet been
decided. Urban VI was a ferocious despot. He ordered six cardinals, whom he
suspected of opposing him, to be brutally tortured. Nor was his competitor,
Clement VII, behind him in violence and crime. For fifty years they and their
successors excited bloody wars and excommunicated one another. The schism,
which cost thousands of lives, was ended by the deposition of John XXIII (1415),
who was found guilty of murder and incest. He was accused before the Council of
having seduced two hundred nuns. Theodoric de Niem informs us that he kept two
hundred mistresses in Bologna, and he is described by his own secretary as a
monster of avarice, ambition, lewdness and cruelty. The same author says
that an act of accusation, prepared against him, presented a complete catalogue of
every mortal crime.
MARTIN V (1417-31)
His crimes were not of a kind to be censured by a Council of
bishops. He had John Huss and Jerome of Prague burnt alive, and to put down
their heresies excited civil war in Bohemia. He wrote to the Duke of Lithuania: “Be
assured thou sinnest mortally in keeping faith with heretics.”
EUGENIUS IV (1431-47) His first act was to put to torture the treasurer of his
predecessor, Martin V. He seized that pontiff’s treasures and sent to the scaffold
two hundred Roman citizens, friends of the late pope. The Council of Basle
was called and deposed the pope, setting up an antipope, Felix V. Civil war and
much cruelty of course followed.
PAUL II (1464-71)
He broke all the engagements he had made to the conclave
prior to his election. He persecuted with the greatest cruelty and perfidy the Count
of Anguillara. He strove to kindle a general war throughout Italy, and
excommunicated the king of Bohemia for protecting the Hussites against his
persecutions. He also persecuted the Fratricelli. “His love of money,” says
Symonds, “was such that, when bishoprics fell vacant, he often refused to fill them
up, drawing their revenues for his own use, and draining Christendom as a Verres
or a Memmius sucked a Roman province dry. His court was luxurious, and in
private he was addicted to all the sensual lusts.” The same writer says that
“He seized the chief members of the Roman Academy, imprisoned them, put them
to the torture, and killed some of them upon the rack.” He died suddenly,
leaving behind him an immense treasure in money and jewels, amassed by his
avarice and extortion.
SIXTUS IV (1471-84). He strove to excel his predecessors in crime. According to
Symonds, “He began his career with a lie; for though he succeeded, to that demon
of avarice, Paul, who had spent his time in amassing money which he did not use,
he declared that he had only found five thousand florins in the papal treasury.”
The historian continues:
“This assertion was proved false by the prodigality with which he
lavished wealth immediately upon his nephews. It is difficult even to
hint at the horrible suspicions which were cast upon the birth of two of
the Pope’s nephews and upon the nature of his weakness for them: yet
the private life of Sixtus rendered the most monstrous stories plausible,
while his public treatment of these men recalled to mind the partiality
of Nero for Doryphorus … The Holy Father himself was wont to say, A
Pope needs only pen and ink to get what sum he wants.’ … Fictitious
dearths were created; the value of wheat was raised to famine prices;
good grain was sold out of the kingdom, and bad imported in exchange;
while Sixtus forced his subjects to purchase from his stores, and made a
profit by the hunger and disease of his emaciated provinces.”
“He was restrained by no scruple from rendering his spiritual power
subservient to his worldly views, or from debasing it by a mixture with
those temporary intrigues in which his ambition had involved him. The
Medici being peculiarly in his way, he took part in the Florentine
troubles; and, as is notorious, brought upon himself the suspicion of
being privy to the conspiracy of the Pazzi, and to the assassination
which they perpetrated on the steps of the altar of the cathedral: the
suspicion that he, the father of the faithful, was an accomplice of such
acts! When the Venetians ceased to favor the scheme of his nephew, as
they had done for a considerable time, the pope was not satisfied with
deserting them in a war into which he himself had driven them; he
went so far as to excommunicate them for persisting in it. He acted
with no less violence in Rome: he persecuted the Colonnas with great
ferocity: he seized Marino from them; he caused the prothonotary
Colonna to be attacked, arrested and executed in his own house. The
mother of Colonna came to San Celso in Branchi, where the body lay —
she lifted the severed head by the hair, and cried ‘Behold the head of
my son! Such is the faith of the pope. He promised that if we would give
up Marino to him he would set my son at liberty; he has Marino: and
my son is in our hands — but dead! Behold thus does the pope keep his
Jortin says that “Sixtus IV erected a famous bawdy-house at Rome, and the
Roman prostitutes paid his holiness a weekly tax, which amounted sometimes to
twenty thousand ducats a year.”
INNOCENT VIII (1484-92).
Schlegel, in his notes to Mosheim, says he “lived so
shamefully before he mounted the Roman throne, that he had sixteen illegitimate
children to make provision for. Yet on the papal throne he played the zealot against
the Germans, whom he accused of magic, and also against the Hussites, whom he
well-nigh exterminated.” Wilks says: “He obtained the votes of the
cardinals by bribery, and violated all his promises.” [1 37 :8] The practice of selling
offices prevailed under him as well as under his predecessors. “In corruption,” says
Symonds, ” he advanced a step even beyond Sixtus, by establishing a bank at
Rome for the sale of pardons. Each sin had its price, which might be paid at the
convenience of the criminal: one hundred and fifty ducats of the tax were poured
into the Papal coffers; the surplus fell to Franceschetto, the Pope’s son.” [1 37 :9]
The Vice-Chancellor of this rapacious pontiff, on being asked why indulgences were
permitted for the worst scandals, made answer that “God wills not the death of a
sinner, but rather that he should pay and live.” It must be added that “the traffic
which Innocent and Franceschetto carried on in theft and murder filled the
Campagna with brigands and assassins.” The Pope’s vices cost him so much
that he even pledged the papal tiara as a security for money.
ALEXANDER VI (1492-1503)
Roderic Borgia was one of the most depraved
wretches that ever lived. His passions were so unbridled that, having conceived a
liking for a widow and two daughters, he made them all subservient to his
brutality. Wilks calls him “a man of most abandoned morals, deep duplicity, and
unscrupulous ambition. Like his predecessors, he had but one object at heart, the
temporal and hereditary aggrandisement of his family.” Mosheim says: “So
many and so great villainies, crimes and enormities are recorded of him, that it
must be certain he was destitute not only of all religion, but also of decency and
shame.” This pope, at a certain feast, had fifty courtesans dancing, who, at a
given signal, threw off every vestige of clothing and — we draw a veil over the
scene! “To describe him,” says Symonds, “as the Genius of Evil, whose sensualities,
as unrestrained as Nero’s, were relieved against the background of flame and
smoke which Christianity had raised for fleshly sins, is justifiable.” [1 38:4] His
besetting vice was sensuality; in oriental fashion he maintained a harem in the
Vatican. He invited the Sultan Bajazet to enter Europe and relieve him of the
princes who opposed his intrigues in favor of his children.
In regard to his death we follow Ranke:
“It was but too certain that he once meditated taking off one of the
richest of the cardinals by poison. His intended victim, however,
contrived, by means of presents, promises and prayers, to gain over his
head cook, and the dish which had been prepared for the cardinal was
placed before the pope. He died of the poison he had destined for
another.” [1 38:5]
JULIUS II (1503-13)
He obtained the pontificate by fraud and bribery, [1 38:6]
and boldly took the sword to extend his dominion. [1 38:7 ] Mosheim says:
“That this Julius II possessed, besides other vices, very great ferocity,
arrogance, vanity, and a mad passion for war, is proved by abundant
testimony. In the first place, he formed an alliance with the Emperor
and the King of France, and made war upon the Venetians. He next laid
siege to Ferrara. And at last, drawing the Venetians, the Swiss and the
Spaniards, to engage in the war with him, he made an attack on Lewis
XII, the king of France. Nor, so long as he lived, did he cease from
embroiling all Europe.”
PAUL III (1531-49)
He was as much a man of the world as any of his
predecessors. He acknowledged an illegitimate son and daughter. [1 38:9] The
emperor once remonstrated with him on having promoted two of his grandsons to
the cardinalate at too early an age. He replied that he would do as his predecessors
had done — that there were examples of infants in the cradle being made
We now close this horrid list of criminals. Since the Reformation the popes have
been obliged to live more decently, or at least to conceal their vices instead of
flaunting them before the world. Should the Protestants object that they are in no
way responsible for the crimes of the Papacy, we shall cheerfully concede the plea;
but at the same time we beg to remind them that Catholics are also Christians, and
that the historian must deal with the whole system through all the centuries.
Besides, as Michelet observed, Protestantism is after all only an estuary, and
Catholicism the great sea.
We were later to learn that indeed the vices were well concealed and that levels of debauchery went unchecked for many more centuries right up to the present time
In this Danish cartoonist image, John Paul II is the Sun as the Infallible most powerful Pope of the Catholics with seven rays of the 7 Sacraments, he is in his white papal uniform and his two papal hands pulls up the children”s robes because he enabled and allowed thousands of pedophiles rapists-priests to go on freely sodomizing and raping little boys (and girls) during his longest reigning papacy of 26 years, together with Cardinal Josef Ratzinger his right-hand man.
Yesterday evening, 01/03/2013 a Criminal Complaint was lodged and a statement taken by An Garda Siochana at the Bridewell Station in Dublin. The criminal acts complained and alleged in the statement pertain to Allied Irish Bank plc and include reckless lending, operating a Bank without a valid Bank License and breach of Liquidity Laws among others, this only the second such complaint made in the history of the State, the first having been made on February 14th 2013 at Malahide Garda Station, to date no “Pulse” incident number has been provided by An Garda Siochana for the first complaint, that in itself is the basis of a subsequent complaint to the Garda Ombudsman, the Dept of Justice and the Minister himself. The complaint lodged last night has been assigned a Pulse incident number, we will await the outcome of the Garda investigation of this Criminal Complaint.
When the CEO of the broker-dealer MF Global misuses customers’ funds, he should be prosecuted for criminal activity. But corruption in government and in finance now run so deep and wide that financial crimes are just ignored. Conflicts of interest no longer seem to matter.
Two directors of the oxymoronically described “self-regulatory” National Futures Association have recommended that Jon Corzine be banned from trading futures. Is that all the public gets for regulatory reform of rogue financiers? Shame!
Jon Corzine: Sounds like Mafia to me
A potential felon awaits questioning
In scenes reminiscent of Herod in Bethlehem, police are roaming the streets in packs arresting each and every old man in the country in case they once did something bad and got away with it!
Starting out as part of Operation Yew Tree in which police are questioning any smug old people who so much as shared a lift with Jimmy Saville, this new initiative hopes to cleanse Britain’s ageing population of unconfessed crimes.
“They’re just bitter because they didn’t catch us at the time!” Said Bernard Stevens (70) from London who finally owned up to stealing oranges to save his little brother from dying of scurvy during the blitz.
There is also a suggestion that turning old men into criminals might be a good enough reason to stop their state pensions (an outcome which would be interpreted as ‘Growth’ by Chancellor George Osborne).
“It’s great!” Said a spokesman for the Chancellor’s office. “We don’t even have to send them to prison, just pack em off home with 140 hours of community service and no pension! Free labour and a welcome Christmas bonus for Britain’s economy!”
Thousands of old men are currently holed up in police cells across the country without medication, slippers or perhaps more importantly…bedpans!
“Fookin hell, this place stinks of turd!” said one criminal who asked to be transferred to a high security ring with a guaranteed buggering rather than put up with the stench of a thousand old man poos.
“It’s like Christmas has come early!” Said one local police commissioner. “We’ve charged more people in the last week than in the whole of 2011!”
Some of the crimes for which these poor chaps have been convicted include; puking in a girls lavatory, driving into a bush having accidentally taken your wife’s Valium and talking to children without a license!
The world is a safer place this week.
Can you imagine working for a company that has just 635 employees, but has the following employee statistics? 29 have been accused of spouse abuse, 7 have been arrested for fraud, 9 have been accused of writing bad cheques, 17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses, 3 have done time for assault, 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit, 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges, 8 have been arrested for shoplifting, 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits, 84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year – and – collectively, this year alone, they have cost the British tax payer £92,993,748 in expenses! Which organisation is this?
It’s the 635 members of the House of Commons. The same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line. And just to top all that they probably have the best ‘corporate’ pension scheme in the country! If you agree that this is an appalling state of affairs, please pass it on to everyone you know.
Under the deal, the investment arm of the Alfa Group, A1, will keep up to $200 million (€155 million) of property formerly owned by the family of Seán Quinn and now held by other Russian interests and offshore firms, in return for helping to recover property.
The move by the IBRC comes as the former billionaire, Seán Quinn (66), is starting a nine-week sentence in Mountjoy Jail for contempt of court. It was approved by Minister for Finance Michael Noonan and is linked to the bank’s view that such a deal is the only option left open to it given the stance being adopted by the Quinn family.
IBRC has been trying for more than a year to seize an international property group worth up to $500 million and over which it says it has legal security linked to loans to the Quinns. The family has told the High Court that it set in train a scheme to put the assets beyond the bank’s reach but that it is now no longer in control of the asset-stripping scheme and cannot retrieve the assets. The bank says it does not believe the family.
Mr Quinn was jailed yesterday for nine weeks by Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne as punishment for an “outrageous” contempt of court in relation to persisting with the asset-stripping after being ordered last year to desist. She referred to Mr Quinn’s statement in an affidavit that his dispute with IBRC had “negatively consumed” his life and that of his family. “In my view, he has only himself to blame.”
She said Mr Quinn’s contempt was a serious one and that it was important that court orders were complied with and the integrity of the court system was “not set at naught”.
The family is disputing the legality of the security, which, it claims, is linked to loans issued by Anglo as part of an effort to shore up its share price. Its claim has not yet been heard by the courts.
However, members of the family have admitted they initiated a scheme to put the secured assets beyond the reach of the bank.
Mr Quinn will be moved today to the semi-open training unit in Mountjoy, having spent last night in the committal unit. His son, Seán jnr, has already served a three-month sentence for contempt in Mountjoy.
In an extraordinary day in the High Court Mr Quinn was sentenced, but offered the opportunity to have the sentence stayed pending an appeal. The court rose to allow him consult with his legal team, which he did before going to the bar in the Four Courts to drink a pint in the company of supporters.
When he returned to court it was announced that he wanted to start his sentence forthwith. When he knew a decision had been made, he liked to get on with it, he told reporters, before being led away by a uniformed garda.
The former billionaire, who is now a bankrupt, looked tearful after a female supporter gave him a hug as he was exiting the courtroom.
In July IBRC succeeded in having an administrator appointed to a valuable property in Moscow, but last month that gain was reversed by the Russian courts.
The bank has now decided to do a deal with one of the largest privately owned conglomerates in Russia, the Alfa Group, as it believes its chances of recovering valuable property in Russia and the Ukraine are poor without the involvement of an experienced local partner.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny would not comment directly on the sentencing of Mr Quinn, though he said it behoved every citizen to co-operate with bank inquiries. The North’s Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness said he couldn’t comment on a court the case “other than to say that I think that the banks have an awful lot to answer for”.
Sir Paul Kennedy, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, has told MPs that the powers could be justified when investigating incidents such as fly tipping and that setting a “crime threshold” would be difficult.
The Government has proposed new measures that will force internet and phone companies to record and store all activities of their customers for a year.
Ministers have said the move is only to allow the police, the security services and tax officials to tackle terrorism and serious crime.
The proposals will stop local authorities and hundreds of other agencies from accessing such records.
But Sir Paul, whose job is to check such powers are being used appropriately, said the powers should not be limited to law enforcement agencies, and said even “less serious” offences can have very serious impacts on the lives of the victims.
He told MPs: “It raises some (issues) particularly in relation to local authorities. They have a statutory duty to investigate fly tipping.
“It is not a very important crime but if it affects you directly it is very important to you.”
Measures in the draft communications data bill will require communication providers such as phone and internet companies to store details of every activity of their customers for a year.
The records stored will include emails, website visits, phone calls and activity on social networking sites, but not the content of any messages or calls.
The Government argues the move is necessary to allow the police and security agencies to keep up with modern communications and access data of serious offenders.
But civil liberty groups argue it is a huge intrusion in to people’s private lives.
A joint parliamentary committee is currently examining the bill, and Sir Paul gave evidence before it last week.
In additional written evidence, he said: “The powers should not be limited to just police and intelligence agencies.
“Parliament has delegated statutory enforcement functions to a number of other public authorities and as a result they have a clear statutory duty to investigate a number of criminal offences, some of which are their sole responsibility.
“Often the criminal offences that these public authorities investigate are regarded as very important at a local level and provide the public with reassurance and protection.”
He highlighted examples such as “criminals who persistently rip off consumers, cheat the taxpayer, deal in counterfeit goods, and prey on the elderly and vulnerable”.
He said requests from such authorities make up just over one per cent of the total adding: “but this does not mean that such public authorities should not be able to use the powers when they can demonstrate necessity and proportionality”.
He said: “It would be difficult to set a crime threshold for the use of communications data for a number of reasons, even by reference to the gravity of the offence.
“Previous statutory attempts to define serious crime have not produced satisfactory results and some “less serious” offences can have very serious impacts on the victims.
“It is therefore much better to leave it to the authorising officer to decide, in relation to the facts of each individual investigation, whether the application to use communications data to detect it is necessary and proportionate.”
Dominic Raab, the Tory MP, said: “This kind of intrusive surveillance is already shifting too far away from targeting terrorists and serious criminals towards indiscriminately monitoring ordinary citizens.”
Last week, Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, said the new powers will only stop “incompetent criminals and accidental anarchists” and not the “really scary people”.
He said terrorists and organised criminals would simply find a way around the tactic and not use established providers or encrypt their messages.
Mr Graham also launched a thinly veiled criticism of the Home Office that he was not being given either the powers or resources to regulate any future system.