Clerical abuse!

[Ulick]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing unfortunatly there's still no smoking gun on the Pope, but I'm sure they'll have another go next week.

what do you mean hindsight is a wonderful thing? What's that statement in response to?

The article that Main Street posted which doesn't really add anything to the one I posted in response to the latest Pope coverup claim.

[Ulick]

Erm no I haven't. Am using a mobile device so I can't be arsed with the hassle of going back to copy in urls esp when you can Google it yourself. Besides, the article I posted should be able to stand on its own merits, which it does to shoot down this latest feeble smeer attempt.

So you have no catholic links but keep finding stories to back up your views from obscure catholic websites, use a mobile device which you can paste articles but which is too much hassle to paste the link. Ulick - I believe you are full of shit and don't have the courage to declare your interests in this.

Myles I've told you before, if you can't be civil and debate like a grown-up I won't be responding to you.

[ONeill]

But you did.

[Tony Baloney]

But you did.

Child.

[theskull1]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI

RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain "for crimes against humanity".

Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.

[ONeill]

But you did.

Child.

Exactly.

[Main Street]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing unfortunatly there's still no smoking gun on the Pope, but I'm sure they'll have another go next week.

what do you mean hindsight is a wonderful thing? What's that statement in response to?

The article that Main Street posted which doesn't really add anything to the one I posted in response to the latest Pope coverup claim.

The article I posted contains facts which your article lied about.
Fact that Kiesle was allowed to work as a priest with minors  in the 5 year year period at he behest of and with the blessing of Ratzinger, while Ratzinger hummed and hawed over the balance of Church PR scandal effects.

[Ulick]

The article I posted contains facts which your article lied about.
Fact that Kiesle was allowed to work as a priest with minors  in the 5 year year period at he behest of and with the blessing of Ratzinger, while Ratzinger hummed and hawed over the balance of Church PR scandal effects.

But it doesn't address any of the main points. It was only found out later he was an abuser and there's nothing to suggest the Pope knew he was an abuser when he was a priest (if he was at all). This story is even more pathetic than the last - and again this is coming from someone wiith no love of the Church.

[mylestheslasher]

Erm no I haven't. Am using a mobile device so I can't be arsed with the hassle of going back to copy in urls esp when you can Google it yourself. Besides, the article I posted should be able to stand on its own merits, which it does to shoot down this latest feeble smeer attempt.

So you have no catholic links but keep finding stories to back up your views from obscure catholic websites, use a mobile device which you can paste articles but which is too much hassle to paste the link. Ulick - I believe you are full of shit and don't have the courage to declare your interests in this.

Myles I've told you before, if you can't be civil and debate like a grown-up I won't be responding to you.

I suppose if I were to post an article on the pope from this website it would be worth serious discussion. 
http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

I won't be civil to people with hidden agendas that are too cowardly to declare them. A guy that has no love of the church who trawls obscure catholic websites to paste stories in here? What a load of bollix. Maybe you should change your name again because your latest creation "Ulick" is fast becoming a joke.

[muppet]

Mysterious letters appear about an old case involving the current Pope.

Media publish them and ask question about the role of the Pope in those cases.

Vatican issue immediate denial of any wrongdoing.

Blind attackers of the church point to above as evidence of cover-up.

Blind defenders of the church point to the above as evidence of unfounded church/Pope bashing.

Both sides claim victory.


The reality is that any objective observer would say there are some serious questions that should be answered openly if the church (and the Pope) is to maintain its integrity. The church should not construct its reactions to deal only with what it sees as the blind attackers. Its blind defenders do it no favours either attacking those otherwise well disposed to the church as 'a la carte' etc basically doing a George Dubya 'you are either with us or against us' but don't dare question us routine.

[Main Street]

The article I posted contains facts which your article lied about.
Fact that Kiesle was allowed to work as a priest with minors  in the 5 year year period at he behest of and with the blessing of Ratzinger, while Ratzinger hummed and hawed over the balance of Church PR scandal effects.

But it doesn't address any of the main points. It was only found out later he was an abuser and there's nothing to suggest the Pope knew he was an abuser when he was a priest (if he was at all). This story is even more pathetic than the last - and again this is coming from someone wiith no love of the Church.

"It was only found out later he was an abuser"

Who only found out later?  Ratzinger?  Are you just playing the total eejit now? Is this what is called blind faith?
If you want to be taken anyway seriously,  then show some attention to this  level of debate that demands respect for facts.
You are insulting my intelligence with that reply.

Are you honestly trying to say that the Ratzinger did not know Kiesle was a convicted sex abuser?
He was already a convicted sex abuse criminal, who had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of lewd conduct, when charged with tying up 2 boys in the rectory and molesting them. His Bishop had persuaded him to resign his priesthood. Ratzinger was the recipient of all documentation.
If Ratzinger did not know at the time of his lenghty time considering the documentation around the defrocking of Kiesle at the behest of a Bishop,  it would mean he was the greatest inept bumpkin ever to grace high office in the Vatican.
And we know Ratzinger is anything but that, he was on top of his office and directed by the Pope JP.
Ratzinger replied in 1985
"This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of 'grave significance"

grave significance? why so?  of course, grave significance in regard to the proven known character of the priest.
What else other than the fact that he was convicted child molester could have inspired Ratzinger to write 'grave significance'

Ratzinger goes on
"nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner."

The good of the Church over rides other considerations.


Full text of letter from Ratzinger to the Oakland Bishop letter 1985
Most Excellent Bishop
Having received your letter of September 13 of this year, regarding the matter of the removal from all priestly burdens pertaining to Rev. Stephen Miller Kiesle in your diocese, it is my duty to share with you the following:
This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner.
It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time.
In the meantime your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible and in addition to explain to same the rationale of this court, which is accustomed to proceed keeping the common good especially before its eyes.
Let me take this occasion to convey sentiments of the highest regard always to you.
Your most Reverend Excellency
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[Main Street]

Remember the Fr Murphy case from a few pages back in this thread and the Canon Law lawyer Father Thomas Brundage?
Brundage had vehemently denied that there were any knowledge of any plans to end the tribunal into the case of the pedophile Fr Murphy.

The Milwaukee Sentinel has shot back with an arrow to the heart of Fr. Brundage's credibility.
http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/89802007.html

"This sort of thing would have stuck in my memory, because I would have been furious that Weakland would want me to stop the case," Brundage said in an interview with the Journal Sentinel on Thursday.
He speculated that (then-Archbishop) Weakland might have written the Aug. 19 letter to the deputy, then Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, but never told Brundage to end the trial because Murphy died two days later.

But on Friday, the Journal Sentinel learned that a letter seemingly written by Brundage to Weakland on Aug. 15, 1998, shows Brundage actually drafted Weakland's letter to Bertone.

It addresses Weakland, saying: "As you have requested I put together what might be a response to Archbishop Bertone's document regarding Fr. Murphy that he recently sent us. Here is a suggested response:"

The central part of the letter is virtually identical to Weakland's later letter to Bertone, except for minor changes in spelling and punctuation. And, though it does not include a handwritten signature, it ends with: "I hope this is of help Archbishop,

Rev. Thomas T. Brundage, Judicial Vicar, Archdiocese of Milwaukee."

Brundage said Friday that he has no memory of either letter. He voiced dismay at the apparent contradiction.
"I have no memory of ever being asked to abate the case," Brundage said.

The catholic Anchor has now printed an apology from Fr Brundage
http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=620

Fair play to him for apologising  "for my mistake and for making a very complicated and painful case even more complicated and painful."
Unfortunatly for the Father this is a serious mistake and discredits the veracity of anything he remembers unless it is supported by documentation.

[theskull1]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Vatican-finally-tells-bishops-report.6221208.jp

Vatican finally tells bishops: report alleged pervert priests to the police


One really has to wonder why the church has been dragged kicking and screaming to do something that should have been done decades ago? Are they trying to get the media to call the dogs off in case there are more serious revelations exposed at vatican level? I would have my suspicions

[Ulick]

Who only found out later?  Ratzinger?  Are you just playing the total eejit now? Is this what is called blind faith?
If you want to be taken anyway seriously,  then show some attention to this  level of debate that demands respect for facts.
You are insulting my intelligence with that reply.

Are you honestly trying to say that the Ratzinger did not know Kiesle was a convicted sex abuser?
He was already a convicted sex abuse criminal, who had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of lewd conduct, when charged with tying up 2 boys in the rectory and molesting them. His Bishop had persuaded him to resign his priesthood. Ratzinger was the recipient of all documentation.
If Ratzinger did not know at the time of his lenghty time considering the documentation around the defrocking of Kiesle at the behest of a Bishop,  it would mean he was the greatest inept bumpkin ever to grace high office in the Vatican.
And we know Ratzinger is anything but that, he was on top of his office and directed by the Pope JP.
Ratzinger replied in 1985
"This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of 'grave significance"

grave significance? why so?  of course, grave significance in regard to the proven known character of the priest.
What else other than the fact that he was convicted child molester could have inspired Ratzinger to write 'grave significance'

Ratzinger goes on
"nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner."

The good of the Church over rides other considerations.


Full text of letter from Ratzinger to the Oakland Bishop letter 1985
Most Excellent Bishop
Having received your letter of September 13 of this year, regarding the matter of the removal from all priestly burdens pertaining to Rev. Stephen Miller Kiesle in your diocese, it is my duty to share with you the following:
This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner.
It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time.
In the meantime your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible and in addition to explain to same the rationale of this court, which is accustomed to proceed keeping the common good especially before its eyes.
Let me take this occasion to convey sentiments of the highest regard always to you.
Your most Reverend Excellency
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

He wasn't convicted of sexual abuse in 1985 when Ratzinger replied to the letter.

Ratzinger and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith didn't become responsible for the sexual abuse cases until 2001.

[longrunsthefox]

Ulick... it is strange you just blindly defend-defend-defend the one holy apostolic watever... sad for their victims but despite boys like you the truth will continue to come out. Their day has come