Posted on 04/08/2010 11:36:45 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
A West Texas teen filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Archdiocese of San Antonio and Archbishop Jose Gomez alleging repeated sexual assaults by a parish priest, who he says the church's leadership should have known was abusive.
The allegations came just days after Gomez was named to a high-profile post leading the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, where he is scheduled to be formally introduced to parishioners in May.
The lawsuit accuses the Rev. John M. Fiala of repeatedly sexually assaulting the teen, including twice forcing him to have sex at gunpoint when Fiala was the pastor at Sacred Heart of Mary Parish in the remote community of Rocksprings. The lawsuit alleges the incidents occurred in 2007 and 2008, during Gomez's tenure overseeing a swath of south and west Texas.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Actually, the scandal primarily and foremost involved those predisposed to and or those engaging in homsexual activities...
This is ignored by the leftist media that supports the homosexual agenda and as such attacks the one true Church rather than the homosexual agenda advocates that invaded it. They and those who assist in the attack on the Church rather than the cause of the scandal do the work of Satan...
Since I was following the discussion, have not been suspended, and can reply at will to any post on any thread on the forum, I flagged the RM when I saw a violation of the RF rules. Is that a problem?
The correspondence, obtained by The Associated Press, is the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office. The letter, signed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was typed in Latin and is part of years of correspondence between the Diocese of Oakland and the Vatican about the proposed defrocking of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle... The diocese recommended removing Kiesle (KEEZ'-lee) from the priesthood in 1981, the year Ratzinger was appointed to head the Vatican office that shared responsibility for disciplining abusive priests. The case then languished for four years at the Vatican before Ratzinger finally wrote to Oakland Bishop John Cummins. It was two more years before Kiesle was removed; during that time he continued to do volunteer work with children through the church. In the November 1985 letter, Ratzinger says the arguments for removing Kiesle are of "grave significance" but added that such actions required very careful review and more time. He also urged the bishop to provide Kiesle with "as much paternal care as possible" while awaiting the decision, according to a translation for AP by Professor Thomas Habinek, chairman of the University of Southern California Classics Department. But the future pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the "good of the universal church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age." Kiesle was 38 at the time. Kiesle had been sentenced in 1978 to three years' probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young boys in a San Francisco Bay area church rectory... California church officials wrote to Ratzinger at least three times to check on the status of Kiesle's case and Cummins discussed the case with officials during a Vatican visit, according to correspondence. At one point, a Vatican official wrote to say the file may have been lost and suggested resubmitting materials... As Kiesle's fate was being weighed in Rome, the priest returned to suburban Pinole to volunteer as a youth minister at St. Joseph Church, where he had served as associate pastor from 1972 to 1975...The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including "the good of the universal church," according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.
These excerpts reveal Ratzinger's hand was manipulating this sordid mess for years. That's why some have charged Ratzinger with obstruction of justice and an accessory after the fact.
And they would be right.
Would you consider Calvinists to be similar to Muslim Terrorists -I see some similarities...
I'm sure we all appreciate your policing of this forum.
We can assume then that you"ll flag the next post that breaks the rules by accusing someone of being "as intellectually bankrupt as you are morally bankrupt."
You probably would.
A church filled with excuses and very little remorse.
lol. Well that settles it. If Rome says something, we better darn well not challenge Rome.
Who needs evidence when we have Rome's double-secret assurance?
When someone has a history of making personal remarks to others on the RF, and is an anti-Catholic who has never been known to acknowledge the truth, I will tend to notice their remarks above those of others and when appropriate, ping the Mod. Is that a problem?
On one hand I see an attack upon the Church that Christ established as the supposed root cause of this scandal and on the other hand I see men -sinners -specifically, those that advocate the homosexual agenda -those that sexually molest children being ignored as the actual cause...
The media attacks as always to promote evil -others to promote thier own causes -regardless, what sheep clothes the wolves wear they are wolves nonetheless...
Leaving the secular media and thier motives aside --I have yet to ascertain just why some feel that attacking the Church that Christ established will somehow make the offshoot derivative man established church they call home authentic?
It would be like King Henry claiming he could divorce his wife because there were homosexual pedophiles in the Church... Maybe he could form a new religion, wite his own version of the bible and then we could be here like we are right now -one attacking and one laughing. Very odd...
“No, the nine years I refer to are the fact that Kiesle was convicted of molesting two boys in 1978 but he was was not removed from the priesthood until 1987. Nine years later. You guys just make this up as you go along.”
Us guys? Kiesle was defrocked in 1981. That’s not nine years.
“name-calling”
Every time I think you’ve hit rock bottom, you surprise me again.
Then thank God we don't have to be a canon lawyer to know right from wrong, and truth from lies. Thank God we have our own minds to read and understand the not-too-complicated facts that priests were/are molesting children and Rome did/does/will continue to ignore those satanic activities until public opinion finally boils over and forces the RCC hierarchy to hire PR experts to quell the tawdry, destructive maelstrom of its own making.
claim to know more than the (gasp) experts!
lol. This has always been the papacy's refrain -- trust us; we know what you could not possibly understand.
Thank God for His perfect word. Thank God for His gift of eyes to see and ears to hear. Thank God for the renewed mind which (prepare to be astounded) can actually read and comprehend all on one's own according to the conviction of a good conscience.
Read the Bible. You don't need "experts;" only the Holy Spirit.
"...truth is loved in such a way that those who love some other thing want it to be the truth, and, precisely because they do not wish to be deceived, are unwilling to be convinced that they are deceived." -- St. Augustine, Confessions (10:23)
Kiesle was defrocked in 1987.
Nine years after he was convicted of molesting two boys.
Do you claim that the Holy Spirit guides you? Do you claim that the Holy Spirit does not guide the Catholic Church?
Gibberish.
No, but it does require some proficiency in both reading and English. That's okay. There is a "Catechism for Dummies" probably even online.
I do not see the papacy following the Bible on a great many important topics.
"Scripture will ultimately suffice for a saving knowledge of God only when its certainty is founded upon the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit" (I, viii, 13)...
Do you disagree with that statement?
I know. It’s found at Vatican.va.
Well, thank goodness you’re not talking about me since I do not have a “history of making personal remarks to others on the RF.”
Bless your little heart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.