The Fifth CommandmentYou have heard that it was said to the men of old. "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgement." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. The fifth commandment warns us: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."
"You shall not kill. 
You have heard that it was said to the men of old. "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgement." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. 
"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."  ...
Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."  The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.
In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, 'You shall not kill,"  and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love his enemies." 
(54. Ex 20:13, cf. Deut 5:17; 55. Mt 5:21-22; 56. CDF, instruction, Donum virtae, intro. 5; 61. Ex 23:7; 63. Cf. Mt 5:22-39, 5:44.)
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Catechism of the Catholic Church,
U.S.C.C. Inc., 1994, p. 544-5.
His Holiness Pope Sixtus XIII (1585-90) declared with infuriated vigour: "While I live, every criminal must die!"
The Most Blessed Father Pope Benedict XII loved inflicting pain and turned his palace into a vast torture chamber "with irregular walls off which the screams and shrieks of prisoners bounced back and forth into silence." Clement VI "pillaged Cesena in 1377, where 4,000 anti-papal rebels were massacred." Pope Stephen IV (768-72) tore out the eyes of an antipope and was incredibly cruel. He is today venerated as a saint in parts of Sicily.
Popes maimed and were maimed, killed and were killed. Their lives bore no resemblance to the gospels.
In the early thirteen century the Church showed how it dealt with those who would not surrender to papal dogma during the so-called Albigensian Crusade, which devastated much of France in the process of theological cleansing. At first, it had attempted to reconvert the Albigenes through peaceful means. But when this failed Pope Innocent III ordered an armed Crusade which, within twenty years, wiped out hundreds of thousands of people and left only a few surviving bands of Albigenses hiding out in isolated areas.
The Inquisition Office was still hunting these unfortunate people till as late as the fourteenth century. Simon de Montfort’s massacre of the inhabitants of Beziers during this unholy Crusade demonstrated the cruelty which accused heretics received from the Roman Church as a matter of course. It was on this occasion, when asked how his soldiers could tell a heretic from a Christian, that de Montfort gave his infamous reply: "Slay them all. God knows his own."
Pope Alexander was poisoned by his successor Our Most Holy Father John XXIII.
Pope Sergius III disposed and imprisoned Pope Christopher (who had earlier deposed pope Leo V in 903), subsequently having him strangled to death.
Pope Boniface VI was involved in the death of Pope Forsus, and in turn was murdered by his successor Stephen VI. Pope Boniface VII imprisoned pope Benedict VI in June 974 before strangling him "by order of Crescentius." He then imprisoned and presumably murdered former pope, John XIV. He in turn was murdered by a "vengeful Roman mob."
Gregory I "paid fulsome compliments to the most vicious and brutal rulers of the time — Queen Brunichildis of Gaul (Epp., I, 74) and the Emperor Phocas (XIII, 31, 38, and 39) — when they promised to help the Church, and shockingly rejoiced in the murders of good men who opposed the Papacy."
Part V - Disloyal Family Feud
"Dislike Father, Dislike Son"
A vaguely ridiculous princeling from the German duchy of Hanover, a distant cousin, was the royal family’s closest legal relative after the death of Queen Anne. Although he barely spoke a word of English, he was promptly imported from Germany to rule Britain as King George I. Thus, the House of Hanover was established. It would be distinguished by five generations of fathers and sons who absolutely despised one another.
The animosity that existed between George I and his son, also named George, went back years to when the father was sovereign of only his miniature German kingdom of Hanover, the son was just a boy, and a messy affair alienated them forever. The elder George’s beautiful but reckless wife, Sophia Dorothea, was found to be sleeping with a Swedish officer by the name of Philip von Konigsmark. After the affair was discovered, Konigsmark mysteriously disappeared. It was rumored that George had him hacked to pieces and buried beneath the floorboards of his palace at Hanover. Sophia Dorothea’s fate was arguably worse. After divorcing her, George ordered his ex-wife locked away for the rest of her life. She would live another thirty-two years, forbidden from ever seeing her children again.
Young George was so despondent over the fate of his mother that he once reportedly swam the moat of her castle prison in a vain attempt to rescue her. He never forgave his father for the mistreatment of his mother and grew up hating him. The feeling was mutual. When George I became king of Britain, his son, now Prince of Wales, sought to undermine him at every opportunity by courting political opponents to the king’s party. He even formed his own opposition party in both houses of Parliament. This did not endear son to father.
Simmering tensions between the two evolved into all-out war when King George booted Prince George out of the palace. He was forbidden from seeing his own children, who remained in the king’s care, and was declared persona non grata to anyone who wished to retain the king’s favor. Undeterred, the Prince of Wales established a rival court at his new home, Leicester House. Among the favorite activities of the dissidents who gathered there was making fun of the king and all his blundering ways—especially his penchant for ugly mistresses.
Whenever father and son did meet, fearful scenes tended to erupt. King George even ordered the prince arrested at one point, but nothing came of it except even more hostility. It was said that Prince George could not wait for his father to die so he could finally free his mother, but this was not to be. Sophia Dorothea died in 1726, a year before her ex-husband. When the prince heard the news that the king had finally expired, he could hardly believe it. “Dat is one big lie,” he exclaimed in his thick German accent, incredulous that he was at last free from his paternal enemy.
Relations between the new King George II and his own son, Frederick, Prince of Wales, were even less tender. “Our first-born is the greatest ass, the greatest liar, the greatest canaille and the greatest beast in the whole world and we heartily wish he was out of it,” the proud papa once said. George I had wanted his grandson to marry Princess Wilhelmina of Prussia, but as soon as George II ascended to the throne he immediately nixed the match. “I did not think that ingrafting my half-witted coxcomb upon a mad woman would improve the breed,” he later explained.
Prince Frederick held his father in equal esteem, describing him as “an obstinate self-indulgent miserly martinet with an insatiable sexual appetite.” He had a point. Like his father before him, the king became the object of ridicule within his son’s social circles. Hearing such insightful declarations as “I hate all boets and bainters,” who could resist? Thanks to King George’s increasing obsession with order and punctuality, his court became rigid and dull. “No mill horse ever went on a more constant track on a more unchanging circle,” Lord Hervey once remarked. All the fun was to be had at Prince Frederick’s alternative court.
Hoping to undermine his son’s ability to entertain, and thus his social standing, King George slashed the prince’s allowance. He also made it clear, just as his own father had done to him before, that any contact with Frederick or his wife would be considered a gross insult to the king. But the Prince of Wales thrived nevertheless, and constantly eclipsed his father among London’s glittering elite. “My Got,” gasped the outraged king, “popularity always makes me sick, but [Frederick’s] makes me vomit.” King George could barely muster even a facade of mourning when Prince Frederick died in 1751.
Because of Frederick’s early death, George II was succeeded by his grandson, George III, in 1760. With a large brood of debauched sons, the king who lost the American colonies had plenty of opportunity to continue the great Hanoverian tradition of father-son feuding. When he wasn’t exhibiting symptoms of madness, King George was rather prudish in his moral outlook. His sons’ wild behavior, therefore, upset him tremendously, and he never failed to scold them whenever the opportunity arose.
He was particularly disturbed by his eldest son and heir, the future George IV. During his rational moments the king berated the Prince of Wales for his compulsive drinking, gambling, and womanizing, but it was during his lapses into insanity that King George really let loose on his son. During one episode, the royal family was dining at Windsor Castle when the king exploded in a mad fit. Interrupting the conversation, George suddenly rose up from the table, grabbed the prince by the collar, yanked him out of his chair and flung him against a wall. Prince George broke into tears after the scene, but recovered sufficiently to use his father’s mental illness to his advantage.
The loyal son delighted audiences all over London with his wicked imitations of his dad’s foaming-at-the-mouth bouts of insanity. And he made no secret of his desire to see the king locked away forever so he could rule in his stead. When it looked like the king’s illness was becoming permanent, the younger George joyfully swept into action and prepared for his Regency. George III disappointed him, however. The king seemed to rally after each episode, leaving the prince to wait like a buzzard for a permanent descent into insanity. He was finally rewarded in 1810, when his father left reason behind for good.
With no son of his own to carry on the father-son feuding for which the Hanoverians had become so famous, George IV simply turned on his daughter, Charlotte. He was repelled by the spirited girl, detecting in his heir elements of her crude, licentious mother, Caroline, from whom he was bitterly estranged. When Princess Charlotte had the grace to die in labor, there were no other children among George III’s sons, so a mad scramble began among them to settle down and sire an heir. Edward, Duke of Kent, was the lucky one, fathering the future Queen Victoria in 1819.
Part I: Read Excerpts From "The Lust Emperors"
Part II: Read Excerpts From "Six Royals Sinning"
Part III: Read Excerpts From "Unholy Matrimony"
Part IV: Read Excerpts From "Mom Was a Monster, Pop Was a Weasel"
Part V: Read Excerpts From "Royal Family Feud"
Part VI: Read Excerpts From "Strange Reigns"
Part VII: Read Excerpts From "When in Rome"
Part VIII: Read Excerpts From "Papal Vice"
Part IX: Read Excerpts From "Death Be Not Dignified"
Genocide and stealing of land first authorized by the Papacy
"Now that Pope John Paul II has apologized for the wrongs that the Catholic Church has committed over the centuries, he should now revoke the Papal Bulls that governments have used to rape us of our lands, resources, culture and right to self-determination.
The Papal Bulls of 1095, 1452 and 1493, which have been incorporated into the legal systems of all big governments around the world, are one of the most significant causes of suffering of the people all over the world. Saying he is sorry is simply not enough. We believe people all over the world must try every avenue to seek revocation of the Papal Bulls. Governments have relied on them to justify everything from colonization to genocide. Only by revoking the underlying authority can we then start over to regain our lands and rights to practice our own cultures.
We hope this will be seen as an opportunity for people all over the world to regain their rights to choose for themselves what they want to do with their own territories, without domination and control by governments which illegally established themselves via the discovery doctrine. One of the original bases of the discovery doctrine came from the Papal Bull in which Pope Urban II called the first Crusade, in 1095. During the Crusades, millions of acres in the Middle East were summarily taken over and governed by papally sanctioned European rulers. Over time, this culturally racist "justification" became a foundation of international law.
In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex, authorizing the Catholic kings and princes "...to invade, search out, capture, vanquish and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and...to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate... possessions and goods, and to convert them to their use and profit..."
In 1493, a similar Papal Bull granted Spain the right to conquer the lands which Columbus had found, as well as any lands the Spanish might discover in the future. By the time Columbus carried the Discovery Doctrine to the New World, it had already been applied to African people by the Portugese, to Baltic people by the German knights, to the "wild Irish tribesman" by the English, and to others.
In 1803, US President Thomas Jefferson purchased the "Louisiana Territory" from France for $15,000,000.00. France claimed this territory after entering into a treaty with Spain in 1800. It was believed by the British, French and Spanish governments that they had the right to discover and claim the land because the inhabitants were not Christian. The kings and queens of these countries were sanctioned and authorized by the Pope. Known in history as The Doctrine of Discovery or the Law of Nations, the principle was used by the early explorers and colonizers to justify the genocide and stealing of land first authorized by the Pope in 1095, and again in 1452. This is the document Columbus relied on in 1492."
In the Middle Ages, in particular, the Christian church approximated a terrorist organization
"Many think of the church as a sacred institution and of priests and the clergy as men wholly dedicated to the service of God and humankind. This assumption has not always been valid; indeed, it has seldom been so. In the Middle Ages, in particular, the Christian church approximated a terrorist organization, being the instigator and the protagonist in the indestructible horrors of the infamous Inquisition.
In France and, later, in other parts of Europe, beginning in the fourteenth century and peaking in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, tens of thousands of innocent men and women — even children — were persecuted, arrested, arrested, imprisoned, tried in secret, tortured, flayed, hanged, or burnt at the stake in a protracted obsession with heretics, witches, sorcerers, black magic, and demon-possession."
An Account of the Inquisition
"When the reformed religion began to diffuse the Gospel light throughout Europe, Pope Innocent III entertained great fear for the Romish Church. He accordingly instituted a number of inquisitors, or persons who were to make inquiry after, apprehend, and punish, heretics, as the reformed were called by the papists.
At the head of these inquisitors was one Dominic, who had been canonized by the pope, in order to render his authority the more respectable. Dominic, and the other inquisitors, spread themselves into various Roman Catholic countries, and treated the Protestants with the utmost severity. In process of time, the pope, not finding these roving inquisitors so useful as he had imagined, resolved upon the establishment of fixed and regular courts of Inquisition. After the order for these regular courts, the first office of Inquisition was established in the city of Toulouse, and Dominic became the first regular inquisitor, as he had before been the first roving inquisitor.
Courts of Inquisition were now erected in several countries; but the Spanish Inquisition became the most powerful, and the most dreaded of any. Even the kings of Spain themselves, though arbitrary in all other respects, were taught to dread the power of the lords of the Inquisition; and the horrid cruelties they exercised compelled multitudes, who differed in opinion from the Roman Catholics, carefully to conceal their sentiments.
The most zealous of all the popish monks, and those who most implicitly obeyed the Church of Rome, were the Dominicans and Franciscans: these, therefore, the pope thought proper to invest with an exclusive right of presiding over the different courts of Inquisition, and gave them the most unlimited powers, as judges delegated by him, and immediately representing his person: they were permitted to excommunicate, or sentence to death whom they thought proper, upon the most slight information of heresy. They were allowed to publish crusades against all whom they deemed heretics, and enter into leagues with sovereign princes, to join their crusades with their forces.
In 1244, their power was further increased by the emperor Frederic II, who declared himself the protector and friend of all the inquisitors, and published the cruel edicts, viz., 1. That all heretics who continue obstinate, should be burnt. 2. That all heretics who repented, should be imprisoned for life....
The Inquisition belonging to Portugal is exactly upon a similar plan to that of Spain, having been instituted much about the same time, and put under the same regulations. The inquisitors allow the torture to be used only three times, but during those times it is so severely inflicted, that the prisoner either dies under it, or continues always after a cripple, and suffers the severest pains upon every change of weather. We shall give an ample description of the severe torments occasioned by the torture, from the account of one who suffered it the three respective times, but happily survived the cruelties he underwent.
At the first time of torturing, six executioners entered, stripped him naked to his drawers, and laid him upon his back on a kind of stand, elevated a few feet from the floor. The operation commenced by putting an iron collar round his neck, and a ring to each foot, which fastened him to the stand. His limbs being thus stretched out, they wound two ropes round each thigh; which ropes being passed under the scaffold, through holes made for that purpose, were all drawn tight at the same instant of time, by four of the men, on a given signal.
It is easy to conceive that the pains which immediately succeeded were intolerable; the ropes, which were of a small size, cut through the prisoner's flesh to the bone, making the blood to gush out at eight different places thus bound at a time. As the prisoner persisted in not making any confession of what the inquisitors required, the ropes were drawn in this manner four times successively."
Australian Roman Catholic Church admits child sex abuse
"The Roman Catholic Church in the Australian state of Victoria has confirmed that more than 600 children have been sexually abused by its priests since the 1930s.
The Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart, described the figures as 'horrific and shameful'.
They were released in a submission to a state parliamentary inquiry into the handling of abuse cases.
Campaigners say the true number of abuse victims could be up to 10,000."
BBC, September 20, 2012
Catholic Church in Scotland 'knew of 20 child sex abuse allegations
"The BBC has seen evidence that bishops in the Catholic Church in Scotland knew of 20 allegations of child sex abuse by priests between 1985 and 1995.
Another alleged victim of abuse says his life has been ruined.
An academic who compiled a report for the Church on how to deal with abuse says not enough was done.
The Catholic Church in Scotland insists its child protection procedures have improved dramatically since the 1990s and allegations of abuse now are rare.
The Roman Catholic Church is no stranger to scandal, but until now Scotland has not been engulfed by allegations of abuse."
That may be changing
BBC, March 8,, 2013