Smoking Gun for Ratzinger. That's it!

[Maia]

Well, this is what finally did it:

The smoking gun.
Highlights include:

The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including "the good of the universal church," according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.

The correspondence, obtained by The Associated Press, is the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office.

The letter, signed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was typed in Latin and is part of years of correspondence between the Diocese of Oakland and the Vatican about the proposed defrocking of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle.

The Vatican confirmed Friday that it was Ratzinger's signature. "The press office doesn't believe it is necessary to respond to every single document taken out of context regarding particular legal situations," the Rev. Federico Lombardi said.

That's it! You know, I've defended the RCC in a lot of ways, but this is what finally, finally did it for me. They KNEW, and not only did they not do anything, but they actively covered it up, and there's proof that the current pope did it. I don't see how they can weasel out of this one.

 

[Sledge]

Probably by blaming everyone else. They've gone for atheists and gays, it's gotta be Jews and black people next.

 

[Fnord]

It's news like this that makes me want to repeat every epithet my father ever used to describe Catholics. While not all RCs are like Joseph Alois Ratzinger, he is the leader of the RCC, and he sets both policy and example.

He knew! He effing KNEW! And he did effing NOTHING! All for the effing "good of the church"!

 

[Simon39759]

He is not REALLY protecting the pedophile, he is just saying (rightfully) that going public will have a negative effect on both the priest and the church and that must be taken into consideration.
Maybe he just called for a diligent fool-proof inquiry, to make sure not to punish an innocent? [/apologetist]

 

[Fnord]

Protecting ... defending ... condoning ... when it comes to pedophilia, it's all the same. Children get raped, those who know about it and could put a stop to it try to keep it secret instead, and the rapists get to keep their jobs and stay out of jail.

No sympathies. A fair trial is too good for the perverts.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

No sympathies. A fair trial is too good for the perverts.

Fair trials are public and quite humilating for the guilty. I damn well say it is exactly what these sort of people deserve. Any other institution would be held liable for this type of child endangerment. Allowing a known pedophile to continue to work with children unsupervised as happened in this situation. In any rational institution even the accused would be suspended from activities with children while investigations continued. Those investigations would also not be delayed in fear of harming the institution's image.

 

[ddt]

He is not REALLY protecting the pedophile, he is just saying (rightfully) that going public will have a negative effect on both the priest and the church and that must be taken into consideration.
Maybe he just called for a diligent fool-proof inquiry, to make sure not to punish an innocent? [/apologetist]

Yeah, and such a "fool-proof inquiry" took four effing years! Correction: it took him four years just to get back to the Californian clergy.

 

[Brainache]

I'm imagining the scene where a Police detective knocks on Ratzinger's door with a warrant for his arrest on a charge of being an accessory to child molestation...

Police: You have the right to remain silent...

Pope: That's what I did...

Police: You have a right to an attorney...

Pope: Luigi! Call our lawyers!

Police: Come with us sir, we need to ask you some questions...

Some time later in a Courtroom:

Prosecutor: (lays out charges against Pontif)

Defence: We plead insanity!(-outlines the many contradictions in the Bible describing a loving and benevolent God who condones slavery genocide and rape-) The Pontiff is not competent to distinguish between right and wrong. Therefore he has no case to answer!

Judge: We find for the defence. The Pope is obviously insane and should be placed in a facility for the treatment of the mentally ill.

Result: The Roman Catholic Church elect a new Pope and the madness continues.

The end.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I actually think Ratzinger and others would fall clearly under California Penal Code 273a: Child endangerment. Are there any experts who understands California's statutes of limitations? From what I can tell in California " statutory periods do not begin until offense is or should have been discovered." How would that apply to secret internal policies that lead to child endangerment?

 

[Reginald]

I'd pay good money to see the look on his face when they offer the bible up in court.

 

[Simon39759]

I actually think Ratzinger and others would fall clearly under California Penal Code 273a: Child endangerment. Are there any experts who understands California's statutes of limitations? From what I can tell in California " statutory periods do not begin until offense is or should have been discovered." How would that apply to secret internal policies that lead to child endangerment?

I believe Ratzinger got an agreement with the Bush administration that he would never be sued (a presidential pardon? A license to kill?).

 

[Fnord]

Fair trials are public and quite humiliating for the guilty...

Neither public nor humiliating enough! I say let them be tried on live television, and every time their faces are shown, display a caption that lists the crimes they are accused of, and provide a means for those watching to vote "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" for each charge and count.

... I damn well say it is exactly what these sort of people deserve...

A fair trial? Only if the jury is not composed of their peers (e.g., other pedophiles).

Any other institution would be held liable for this type of child endangerment. Allowing a known pedophile to continue to work with children unsupervised as happened in this situation. In any rational institution even the accused would be suspended from activities with children while investigations continued. Those investigations would also not be delayed in fear of harming the institution's image.

Which is exactly why the trial should be as public and humiliating as possible, not only for the accused, but for those who could be charged as "accessories" for "aiding and abetting" the crimes, if only by their knowledge and silence.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Well, this is what finally did it:

The smoking gun.
Highlights include:



That's it! You know, I've defended the RCC in a lot of ways, but this is what finally, finally did it for me. They KNEW, and not only did they not do anything, but they actively covered it up, and there's proof that the current pope did it. I don't see how they can weasel out of this one.

Did what, exactly? Made you decide the Catholic Church isn't worth defending in the face of paedophile accusations after all? Finally showed you that there is in fact proof that they've been protecting paedophiles? Tarnished its reputation beyond redemption? Made you decide not to defend the Catholic Church under any circumstances? Made you decide the Catholic Church is full of paedophiles from top to bottom? Made you decide it has absolutely no credibility? Or what?

If the first, then what could possibly have ever made your response to accusations of the covering up of the actions of paedophiles be to defend the Catholic Church? If the latter four, then why would you make such a sweeping decision on the basis of your latest discovery? That is not a logical conclusion to draw. While the revelations certainly speak appallingly of the Pope, and should make anyone who looks up to him and popes in general think again and even demand his dismissal, since it's on the face of it disgusting that someone whose first priority has been the the church's honour rather than to protecting children should be in such a powerful position, and while other evidence demonstrates that a lot of disgusting indefensible covering up for paedophiles has gone on in the Catholic Church so something is wrong with the system and it needs to be changed and several people should be dismissed, quite possibly amidst a lot of bad press so people can tell some measure of justice is taking place, and while it's true that some of the things the Catholic Church teaches about other things are frankly harmful, to decide to reject the entire Catholic Church on the basis of what one man said once, if that's what you're doing - you're not quite clear, is an emotional response that is not rational. After all, for one thing, he might have had a shift in opinion since making the decision twenty-five years ago you cite, and for another, a larger consideration, there are elements in the Catholic Church that do a lot of good, though they could probably do a lot more if more of the riches of the Catholic Church were funnelled their way instead of being funnelled into self-serving schemes that benefit the already-rich. But the Catholic Church has produced this, for example, so it's obvious it isn't all bad:

CAFOD

CAFOD is the official overseas development and relief agency of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.

What CAFOD does

We work in more than 60 countries worldwide, tackling poverty and injustice. Find out more about each country here

What we do

Learn more about the wide range of problems which keep people living in poverty, and how we are tackling them

How we work

Find out about how we work with more than 500 partners overseas, and with partners in the UK - all working to reduce poverty

Jobs and Volunteering

We work in more than 50 countries worldwide, tackling poverty and injustice. Help us change the world for good by applying for a job which matches your skills, knowledge and talent

History of our work

We were born when volunteer members of the National Board of Catholic Women organised the first Family Fast Day on Friday, March 11, 1960.

Putting faith into action

Our work is one of the ways in which the Church expresses and enacts its belief in human dignity and social justice

It is inspired by Scripture (“to bring good news to the poor,” Luke 4:18), by Catholic Social Teaching and by the experiences and hopes of the poor, marginalised and often oppressed communities it supports.

We are funded and supported mainly by the Catholic community in England and Wales to assist poor communities, regardless of creed. ...

We work to enact Gospel values – within and beyond the Church – including:

• concern for our neighbours and the well-being of future generations
• serving the common good to enable everyone to develop equally
• fighting for social justice and ensuring everyone’s basic needs are met
• acting on the basis of need, not greed, and acting in solidarity with those living in poverty
• promoting the values of human dignity, community, stewardship and the integrity of creation. ...

 

[geni]

That's it! You know, I've defended the RCC in a lot of ways, but this is what finally, finally did it for me. They KNEW, and not only did they not do anything, but they actively covered it up, and there's proof that the current pope did it. I don't see how they can weasel out of this one.

There are a number of options.

Ratzinger can resign. It is an option.

If I've understood my history of the chatholic church correctly Germany can invade and force the installation of a new pope.

They can make the the argument that in saying "It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time. " they are doing no more than the church's equiverlent of due process. The letter makes no mention of covering up the offence.

Some other group could come up with a more interesting pedophilia scandle and the media may lose interest.

Ratzinger could die (82 years old one stroke already it's a posibility).

Wait for the media to get board. It will happen.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Wait for the media to get board. It will happen.

The nail is of course optional depending on the swiftness of justice desired.

 

[Roadtoad]

I read the same news story, and have been following this one in the news. His brother, also a priest, was at one time accused of the same damned thing. It's inexcusable, but there it is.

In the end, you have to ask yourself: If the Catholic Church is doing so much good, is it enough to override everything you see happening with this? In my mind, no. If anything, it disproves the existence of a god.

 

[I Ratant]

Our beloved Cardinal, mentioned in abuse coverups, is being replaced by another from Texas, mentioned in abuse coverups.
And the new guy is deep into Opus Dei.
Should be a rollicking good time here.

 

[yomero]

Over at the Social Issues & Current Events forum there is a thread like this. I think it is pertinent to repeat my post. If I'm not allowed to repeat, then the moderators can delete this post.

This is not the only case. Perhaps more scandalous is the case of Father Marcial Maciel, founder and leader of the conservative and very influential order of The Legion of Christ.

In 1997, nine former seminarians accused him of sexual abuse occurring when they were young boys. Later, there were more accusations alleging abuse to numerous boys. Apparently Fr.Maciel had relations with women too and thus fathered several children. Some of the sons claim to have been sexually abused by him.

Fr. Maciel was not a minor, obscure parish priest. He was the director of a powerful religious order, who enjoyed the affection and protection of Pope John Paul II. The Pope even declared him to be " an eficacious guide to youth".

In the 1990's, Alberto Athie (now a former Legionaire priest) tried to alert the Pope and delivered pertinent documentation to Cardinal J. Ratzinger's office. The future pope declined to proceed.

In my opinion, Fr. Maciel's acts, abhorrent as they were, do not by themselves stain the Catholic Church. However, the attitude taken by The Vatican is unexcusable. When the firsts accusations started, the reaction was to blindly deny them and to persecute the victims and journalists who aided them. The only timid response was to retire Maciel in 2006, probably because by then the dam had broken with the sex abuse scandals in the USA.

 

[Complexity]

I really really dislike the rat in a hat and the gang that he runs.

 

[Roadtoad]

I really really dislike the rat in a hat and the gang that he runs.

And now, thanks to this new information, you have even MORE of a reason to dislike the rat in a hat.

Seems funny to me that anyone hearing this story wouldn't be more than a little pissed off by this kind of blatant evil.