Clerical abuse!

[orangeman]

Isn't it ironic that there are calls for a "truth" type commission / enquiry regarding the conduct of the Roman Catholic church in their covering up and failure to act over child abuse ?.

[give her dixie]

If the Vatican can forgive the Beatles..................

The Vatican has finally forgiven The Beatles after John Lennon claimed the band were "bigger than Jesus" in 1966.

An article in the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, praised the group, saying that due to the beauty of their songs the Jesus comment was "meaningless".

"It's true, they took drugs; swept up by their success, they lived dissolute and uninhibited lives," the article reads. "They even said they were more famous than Jesus. But, listening to their songs, all of this seems distant and meaningless."

The article adds: "Their beautiful melodies, which changed forever pop music and still give us emotions, live on like precious jewels." The band were described as "the longest-lasting, most consistent and representative phenomenon in the history of pop music".

[longrunsthefox]

Does it actually say the Vatican 'forgives' the Beatles?  It ain't their place to 'forgive' them if indeed they need forgiveness. Just because the Catholic Church appoints themselves as God's spokeman on earth doesn't mean they are.   

[Hardy]

I never did understand the furore over Lennon's remark. Media hype and the going-out-of-your-way-to-be-offended syndrome escalated it into one of the infamous statements of the century.

He didn't insult Jesus or claim the Beatles were better or more important - he said they were "bigger" than Jesus. I took that to mean more famous and it was probably true. Lennon's nose for publicity probably had a part in the selection of that particular sound bite too.

[Main Street]

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.

August 1978: Kiesle is arrested and pleads no contest to lewd conduct, a misdemeanor, for tying up and molesting two boys. Sentenced to three years of probation. His record is later expunged.


1978-1981: Takes extended leave of absence, attends counseling and reports regularly to probation officer.

July 1981: Oakland Bishop John Cummins sends Kiesle's file to the Vatican in support of the priest's petition for laicization, or defrocking.
November

1981: Vatican asks for more information.

1982: Kiesle moves to Pinole.

February 1982: Cummins writes to Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, providing additional information and warning of possible scandal if Kiesle is not defrocked.

September 1982: Oakland diocese official writes Ratzinger asking for update.

September 1983: Cummins visits Rome, discusses Kiesle case with Vatican officials.

December 1983: Vatican official writes Oakland to say Kiesle's file can't be found and they should resubmit materials.

January 1984: Cummins writes a Vatican official to inquire about status of Kiesle file.

1985: Kiesle  volunteers as a youth minister at St. Joseph's Church in Pinole.

September 1985: Cummins writes Ratzinger asking about status of Kiesle case.

November 1985: Ratzinger writes to Cummins about Kiesle case.

December 1985: A memo from diocese officials discusses writing to Ratzinger again to stress the risk of scandal if Kiesle's case is delayed.
1987: Kiesle is defrocked.

[Ulick]

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     

The only thing I'm trying to defend fox is journalist standards and showing this witch hunt against the Pope for what it is. 

[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.

August 1978: Kiesle is arrested and pleads no contest to lewd conduct, a misdemeanor, for tying up and molesting two boys. Sentenced to three years of probation. His record is later expunged.


1978-1981: Takes extended leave of absence, attends counseling and reports regularly to probation officer.

July 1981: Oakland Bishop John Cummins sends Kiesle's file to the Vatican in support of the priest's petition for laicization, or defrocking.
November

1981: Vatican asks for more information.

1982: Kiesle moves to Pinole.

February 1982: Cummins writes to Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, providing additional information and warning of possible scandal if Kiesle is not defrocked.

September 1982: Oakland diocese official writes Ratzinger asking for update.

September 1983: Cummins visits Rome, discusses Kiesle case with Vatican officials.

December 1983: Vatican official writes Oakland to say Kiesle's file can't be found and they should resubmit materials.

January 1984: Cummins writes a Vatican official to inquire about status of Kiesle file.

1985: Kiesle  volunteers as a youth minister at St. Joseph's Church in Pinole.

September 1985: Cummins writes Ratzinger asking about status of Kiesle case.

November 1985: Ratzinger writes to Cummins about Kiesle case.

December 1985: A memo from diocese officials discusses writing to Ratzinger again to stress the risk of scandal if Kiesle's case is delayed.
1987: Kiesle is defrocked.

Like I said:


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.

[muppet]

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.

August 1978: Kiesle is arrested and pleads no contest to lewd conduct, a misdemeanor, for tying up and molesting two boys. Sentenced to three years of probation. His record is later expunged.


1978-1981: Takes extended leave of absence, attends counseling and reports regularly to probation officer.

July 1981: Oakland Bishop John Cummins sends Kiesle's file to the Vatican in support of the priest's petition for laicization, or defrocking.
November

1981: Vatican asks for more information.

1982: Kiesle moves to Pinole.

February 1982: Cummins writes to Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, providing additional information and warning of possible scandal if Kiesle is not defrocked.

September 1982: Oakland diocese official writes Ratzinger asking for update.

September 1983: Cummins visits Rome, discusses Kiesle case with Vatican officials.

December 1983: Vatican official writes Oakland to say Kiesle's file can't be found and they should resubmit materials.

January 1984: Cummins writes a Vatican official to inquire about status of Kiesle file.

1985: Kiesle  volunteers as a youth minister at St. Joseph's Church in Pinole.

September 1985: Cummins writes Ratzinger asking about status of Kiesle case.

November 1985: Ratzinger writes to Cummins about Kiesle case.

December 1985: A memo from diocese officials discusses writing to Ratzinger again to stress the risk of scandal if Kiesle's case is delayed.
1987: Kiesle is defrocked.

Like I said:


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.

No he was a model citizen, no threat whatsoever.

"August 1978: Kiesle is arrested and pleads no contest to lewd conduct, a misdemeanor, for tying up and molesting two boys. Sentenced to three years of probation. His record is later expunged"

[give her dixie]

Ulick, and others who are defending the indefensible, please take time to watch this movie, "Deliver Us From Evil".
Deliver Us from Evil is a documentary film directed by Amy J. Berg which tells the true story of Catholic priest Oliver O'Grady, who sexually abused potentially hundreds of children between the late 1970s and early 1990s. The film won the Best Documentary Award at the 2006 Los Angeles Film Festival and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.

If you still believe that there is no cover up going on after watching this, then i'm sorry, there is no hope for you. Before you watch it, be prepared for some horrific stories of abuse and cover up. Right the whole way up to Benny in Rome. In particular, watch Cardinal Mahoney squirm and refuse to answer questions in police questioning. Plus, see how Mahoney and co gave Olive O' Grady a substantial pension in return for him not testifying against Mahoney. O'Grady was in jail at the time for 7 years for abusing children. Now why would the church reward a convicted child abuser?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7745088455537169028&ei=_SrGS66UD9PH-Qbyl9CtAg&q=deliver+us+from+evil&hl=en#

[mylestheslasher]

Ulick, and others who are defending the indefensible, please take time to watch this movie, "Deliver Us From Evil".
Deliver Us from Evil is a documentary film directed by Amy J. Berg which tells the true story of Catholic priest Oliver O'Grady, who sexually abused potentially hundreds of children between the late 1970s and early 1990s. The film won the Best Documentary Award at the 2006 Los Angeles Film Festival and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.

If you still believe that there is no cover up going on after watching this, then i'm sorry, there is no hope for you. Before you watch it, be prepared for some horrific stories of abuse and cover up. Right the whole way up to Benny in Rome. In particular, watch Cardinal Mahoney squirm and refuse to answer questions in police questioning. Plus, see how Mahoney and co gave Olive O' Grady a substantial pension in return for him not testifying against Mahoney. O'Grady was in jail at the time for 7 years for abusing children. Now why would the church reward a convicted child abuser?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7745088455537169028&ei=_SrGS66UD9PH-Qbyl9CtAg&q=deliver+us+from+evil&hl=en#

Ulick will soon be posting a movie refuting all these claims from the reputable website "www.welovecatholics.com"

[Ulick]

Ulick, and others who are defending the indefensible, please take time to watch this movie, "Deliver Us From Evil".
Deliver Us from Evil is a documentary film directed by Amy J. Berg which tells the true story of Catholic priest Oliver O'Grady, who sexually abused potentially hundreds of children between the late 1970s and early 1990s. The film won the Best Documentary Award at the 2006 Los Angeles Film Festival and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.

If you still believe that there is no cover up going on after watching this, then i'm sorry, there is no hope for you. Before you watch it, be prepared for some horrific stories of abuse and cover up. Right the whole way up to Benny in Rome. In particular, watch Cardinal Mahoney squirm and refuse to answer questions in police questioning. Plus, see how Mahoney and co gave Olive O' Grady a substantial pension in return for him not testifying against Mahoney. O'Grady was in jail at the time for 7 years for abusing children. Now why would the church reward a convicted child abuser?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7745088455537169028&ei=_SrGS66UD9PH-Qbyl9CtAg&q=deliver+us+from+evil&hl=en#

Whooahh... what do you mean "Ulick, and others who are defending the indefensible" - what exactly is it you think I am defending?

[Pangurban]

You are beating your Head of a Brick Wall Ulick, with the lynch mob baying for blood, there is no point trying to reason with them. They never let facts get in the way of a good story, and are all to ready too believe the worst misquotes and misrepresentations of a gutter press. They care naught for victims, and are merely using them as a battering ram to attack what in their twisted thinking they perceive to be the Church. Heretics and Hypocrites the lot of them, come out from among them and dont lower your intellect to their level in a vain effort at reasonable debate

[Main Street]

"Heretics and Hypocrites the lot of them, come out from among them and dont lower your intellect to their level in a vain effort at reasonable debate"



What a curious use of language used partly to defend the indefensible with a stone wall denial of the actions (the institutional cover up) by the office of the historical Inquisition, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Christian socio-sentiment has always been much more dangerous than say the Jewish socio-sentiment, because the Christian point of view treated those who refused to accept the Christian faith as children of the devil (see 1 John 4:1-3), in contrast for example to the Jews who fundamentally acknowledged all human beings as the children of God, albeit they regarded themselves as the "first- born son" 

[Lar Naparka]

"Heretics and Hypocrites the lot of them, come out from among them and dont lower your intellect to their level in a vain effort at reasonable debate"



What a curious use of language used partly to defend the indefensible with a stone wall denial of the actions (the institutional cover up) by the office of the historical Inquisition, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Christian socio-sentiment has always been much more dangerous than say the Jewish socio-sentiment, because the Christian point of view treated those who refused to accept the Christian faith as children of the devil (see 1 John 4:1-3), in contrast for example to the Jews who fundamentally acknowledged all human beings as the children of God, albeit they regarded themselves as the "first- born son" 

Do you not get the impression that Pangur might not be totally serious??

[Main Street]

It is possible

Such is the nature of the ultra zealot, blind to facts, defense of the Vatican and the CDF,  that a line between sarcasm and such dogma would need some demarcation for a gullible lad like myself.