Phil Lawyer of Catholiculture.org asks the questions the Pope-hating media couldn't be bothered to ask:
• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.
Read the whole article and lament the decline in professional journalistic standards.
Follow HancAquam ------------>
Question for you Father, and all readers - do you think this search for ANYTHING linking the Pope to a pedophile case is going to continue long term? It really seems to have hit a fevered pitch in the last few weeks. I feel like I need to "gird my loins and arm for battle". It is too easy to be complacent and hope "someone else" (whoever that may be) will defend the Pope and the Church to the average man on the street. I feel like I must constantly explain the truth of these (as I find answers) to my friends and acquaintances.
ReplyDeleteJust wondering what you all think. I know the battle against evil must be continuous. This one seems more personal.
Thanks!
Game over.
ReplyDeleteStop embarrassing yourself. At some point you have to face facts. Do you really want to be on the side of the child-rapist protectors? It's getting pretty pathetic by this point. I'm sorry that your world-view is being destroyed - it must be very disconcerting.
The Maciel case alone is dispositive. And that's just one case of many...and many more to follow.
Do you think there won't be more? The signature will be his legacy. Sad but true.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/the-third-strike.html
Ludi, what's truly pathetic here is that you are using Andrew Sullivan as your source.
ReplyDeleteNow. . .enough has been said.
I'm sorry that your world-view is being destroyed
ReplyDeleteEven if I thought that was true, why don't I believe he is sorry?
And actually I highly recommend taking a look at the Maciel case. There, the facts were presented and defenders of Maciel went vague mode and talked about anything other than the facts. Here it is the opposite. MSM publishes its usual hack jobs, and instead of getting vague, people like Phil do the work and demonstrate that they are just dead wrong on the facts.
ReplyDeleteSo, there are seven questions here with answers. If someone thinks any of them are incorrect, I'm all ears. If all you have is just more overheated pitchfork-and-torches rhetoric, kindly put a sock in it.