Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: presidio9
On Friday, the pope's former diocese of Munich confirmed a report that when he was an archbishop in 1980, he approved housing for a priest who was accused of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex.

I like Benedict a great deal, but why did he do this?

2 posted on 03/13/2010 12:08:42 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: onedoug

So you are suggesting that he approved the housihg knowing the priest who is ACCUSED of forcing an 11 year old....

Or else

Why is there such an attack on all things Christian, and if it’s not a direct attack, it’s the ‘suspicion’ or the accusation without directly accusing. But either works, the ACCUSED is tortured in the media, found guilty ....even before guilt is proven.

Or Evil is being less restrained in the world now.


4 posted on 03/13/2010 12:18:39 PM PST by Freddd (CNN is down to Three Hundred Thousand viewers. But they worked for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: onedoug

Ratzinger should have tossed him out onto the street, guilty or not. Right?


6 posted on 03/13/2010 12:26:44 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: onedoug
I like Benedict a great deal, but why did he do this?

The diocesan functionary who was this particular priest's direct superior, Gerhard Gruber, has admitted to the press that he concealed the true nature of this particular priest's troubles by simply claiming that he needed to be housed in a psychiatric facility because of mental problems.

Msgr. Gruber has formally apologized for his actions.

I would also point out that in the 1970s, psychiatrists were very insistent that they were able to "cure" pedophilia and other deviant dispositions through therapy. We know a lot more today about what is and is not possible regarding these matters.

I don't think it's Msgr. Gruber's fault that he took the psychiatric profession at their word and believed and hoped that therapy would work. They were the professionals and he sought their advice.

8 posted on 03/13/2010 12:29:44 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who like to be called Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: onedoug; All

Is anyone ELSE experiencing a Croakly-esque sense of deja vu here?? Same pattern, different decade..not Clinton now but Obama. Another concerted attack on the Catholic church. Coincidence? You decide.


9 posted on 03/13/2010 12:31:44 PM PST by cake_crumb (RR on ObieCare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&feature=player_embedded#)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: onedoug

“Approved housing?” Hardly like putting him in charge of the youth camps. After one came forward, there were no other accusers, and no later revelations?

Seems to me that its reasonable, after one accusation, to avoid putting the guy where he’ll be in charge of minors. But you’re talking of people who often have no money of their own, and no outside line of work.

This sounds like scandal-mongering. If there’s any “there” there, I expect the author would have mentioned it.


11 posted on 03/13/2010 12:54:25 PM PST by dangus (Democrats: People retardants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: onedoug

On Friday, the pope’s former diocese of Munich confirmed a report that when he was an archbishop in 1980, he approved housing for a priest who was accused of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex.

I like Benedict a great deal, but why did he do this?


I don’t know the facts, but it is possible that he approved housing for many people, and had no idea the guy had been a pedophile. The wording is craftily ambiguous.


19 posted on 03/13/2010 1:36:37 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Anything worth doing, is worth doing badly at first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Beelzebubba; dangus; cake_crumb; wideawake; A.A. Cunningham; Freddd

Thanks guys. I’m satisfied Benedict did no wrong in this.


20 posted on 03/13/2010 2:40:17 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: onedoug

Something happened almost twenty years prior. ANd in the fifties, sixties and seventies it was COMMON PRACTICE, SUPPORTED BY PSYCHOLOGISTS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE TYPES, TO REMOVE THE PERP FROM THE SETTING ON THE EXPECTATION THAT THE PERP WOULD NOT REPEAT, AND THAT THE VICTIM NEEDED TO BE PROTECTED FROM WHAT HAPPENED. IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE SEXUAL ABUSE WAS BEST HEALED BY NOT TALKING ABOUT IT.


74 posted on 03/14/2010 4:34:03 PM PDT by Chickensoup (We have the government we deserve. Is our government our traitor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: onedoug
I like Benedict a great deal, but why did he do this?

Was the accusation true? Notice how that part is left out of every story on this incident.
187 posted on 03/17/2010 12:15:31 PM PDT by Antoninus (It's a degenerate society where dogs have more legal rights than unborn babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson