You stated: “No. But ALL the evidence clearly shows he NEVER acted improperly in any of the two or three cases that are now being deliberately distorted by liberals and their dimwitted anti-Catholic allies. Thus, after more than 30 years under microscopic inspection by liberals, they, and you, have come up with exactly squat. Remember, THIRTY years and nada, nothing - or as the pope would say in his upper Bavarian dialecht - gar nichts. Absolutely NOTHING.”
What evidence? The church/Vatican have been HIDING behind secret councils for years, and asking for/claiming immunity as well:
From the AP in 2005:
The U.S. government has told a Texas court that Pope Benedict XVI should be given immunity from a lawsuit accusing him of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian, court documents show.
“There was no immediate ruling from Judge Lee Rosenthal of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston, who has been presiding over the case. However, the Supreme Court has held that U.S. courts are bound by such ‘suggestion of immunity’ motions submitted by the government, Keisler’s filing says.”
And in 2001:
“The lawsuit cites a May 18, 2001, letter from Ratzinger, written in Latin to bishops around the world, explaining that “grave” crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors would be handled by his congregation and that the proceedings of special church tribunals handling the cases were subject to ‘pontifical secret.’”
Previously in 1994:
“A 1994 lawsuit against Pope John Paul II, also filed in Texas, was dismissed after the U.S. government filed a similar motion.”
So perhaps you should change your NO evidence to SUPPRESSED evidence.
BTW, if you think I have been pursuing this for 30 years, that I am a liberal, or a dim witted anti-Catholic, then you really are misinformed. However, I think you are just using that as a rhetorical device.
I have been too busy enjoying the life God gave me and trying to find ways to serve Him (when I am walking as I should) to have any real interest in what the “pope” is doing or not doing.
You wrote:
“What evidence? The church/Vatican have been HIDING behind secret councils for years, and asking for/claiming immunity as well”
Actually no. All of the relevant facts in the cases at hand are known.
“From the AP in 2005:”
Again, you rely on the liberal media.
“So perhaps you should change your NO evidence to SUPPRESSED evidence.”
In the cases at hand there is no suppressed evidence. That was made clear enough by the judge - Fr. Thomas Brundage - in the worst of the cases being bandied about.
“BTW, if you think I have been pursuing this for 30 years, that I am a liberal, or a dim witted anti-Catholic, then you really are misinformed. However, I think you are just using that as a rhetorical device.”
No. I have been correct in all of my characterizations thus far. I am apparently the only one between us who is actually informed about the matters at hand. I, for instance, have read the statement and listened to the podcast from the actual judge in the Fr. Murphy case and you apparently have not. He is far more credible than any lib from the AP. Please note, as Fr. Brundage made clear on a number of occasions, NO ONE FROM THE LIBERAL MEDIA has attempted to contact him about this case. NO ONE.
“I have been too busy enjoying the life God gave me and trying to find ways to serve Him (when I am walking as I should) to have any real interest in what the “pope” is doing or not doing.”
And yet you insist you are informed about the matters at hand? Som you’re too busy to “have any real interest in what the “pope” is doing or not doing” and you insist on relying EXCLUSIVELY ON THE LIBERAL MSM and yet you also insist that you are not misinformed? Hilarious.