Replies

You wrote:

“There isn’t a “terrible falsehood”. You posted your interpretation. I posted the letters. The letters speak for themselves.”

I posted no interpretation. I posted the necessary portion of the timeline. You did not post all the documents, but only a link to a portion of them. You claimed FALSELY that there was no response from Ratzinger when in fact his office replied and advised a trial.

“As is pointed out in the letters, the deaf community was slow to respond due to the nature of their handicap.”

That had nothing to do with Weakland’s ability to launch a procedure. It only mean the process of the invesitigation and trial would be difficult. If you would think for a minute you might realize that if you’re saying Weakland IN WISCONSIN ITSELF had difficulty mounting a case why do you think it would have been easier for a bunch of Italian speakers in VATICAN CITY?!? Did that thought even occur to you? Apparently not.

“Weakland proceeded when he discovered there were problems.”

Perhaps. Then again he was bishop already for about 15 years and had done little or nothing. The gay loving press has given him a complete pass on that apparently - and so are you.

“Excuse me but the LETTERS states that there is no response from Ratzinger’s office. Don’t blame this one on the MSM.”

When will you realize that there were more documents then what you were led to believe by the gay loving MSM? Do you believe a case with allegations going back to the 1950s that came up in the mid 1970s and then was brought to trial in the 1990s would only amount to 82 pages of documents there, sonny? Also, if the police investigated - and they did and decided not to file charges - where are those documents? Why isn’t the MSM reporting on those?

“Ooooohhhh...you’re right. It seems Archbishop Weakland was involved in a homosexual love affair. If so, then Father Murphy case must have been pretty onerous for him to go to all that work.”

A clerical trial is a huge undertaking that no one likes. Weakland had been bishop since 1977. The court case started in 1995 or so. What did Weakland know in the 1970s that he never told anyone in the Vatican until the 1990s? Seriously, you don’t find it suspicious that there’s a paucity of documents from 1974-1995? Maybe Weakland knew nothing. That could be I suppose.

“That just means the Vatican allowed more and more of this to simply fester.”

Again, why didn’t Weakland inform the Vatican BEFORE 1995? I suppose it’s possible that he didn’t know. Do you believe that? Remember, Weakland was bishop since 1977. 1-9-7-7.

“How many more of these people are in the Roman Church?”

Even one would be too many.

“How many more “officials” are going to ignore the issues.”

Very few.

“It’s disgusting but if you wish to use your offering to God to pay off pedophile lawsuits, then that is your prerogative.”

As far as I know not a single dime of any offering I have ever made has gone to pay off a single ephebophile. That’s one of the accidental blessings of being in a Latin Mass community. Not a single priest from any Catholic school I attended, nor any pastor or assistant pastor of any parish I ever attended was ever accused of molesting a child. One priest who I didn’t know well and who only briefly served at a parish I attended years ago temporarily left the active priesthood in a dispute with his order and ended up fathering a child. He later game back, and was given a new chance by another order. I met him then. He didn’t stay. He left the order and no longer worked for the Church. I have no idea what happened to him after that. That’s it.

“God raises up honorable and dishonorable men to accomplish His will. He raised up King Jeroboam just as much as he raised up King David. It doesn’t mean anything.”

It does when it is so obvious that Benedict is an honorable man that his gay-loving enemies have to lie about him.

“He’s a socialist from a socialistic country pushing a socialist agenda.”

Are you honestly going to hold his place of birth against him? And what kind of control did he have over where he was born? Is it rational for a man’s birthplace to be held against him? Gee, I sure hope you weren’t born on the wrong side of the tracks or anything.

“If you thank God for that, then you need to sign up to the Daily Kos-not Free Republic.”

The pope is no socialist. You’re clear attempt at misdirection simply will not work. Are you desperate? You sure sound like it.

” This episode only highlights the Church’s protection of pedophile priests and homosexual archbishops at the expense of their victims or scandal.”

No, actually it doesn’t. Can you present any evidence that Murphy was protected by the Church? Why did he leave the active priesthood in 1974? Why didn’t the Church “protect him” in 1976 or 1980 or afterward? Gee, there goes your theory all shot to hell. Also, when exactly did the Church “protect” Weakland over his homosexuality? Once it was exposed, he was gone pretty quickly. That’s what this is all about. After his autobiographical admission of his homosexuality last year he has nothing to lose. He is cooperating with the gay-loving MSM to attack Benedict. And you’re falling for it apparently.