Unfortunately Petronsius, it was not like that at all, priests do not write to the Vatican. He went though Cardinal Cummins who claimed that he did all the paperwork explaining that Stephen Kiesle had been convicted of tying up two boys and molesting them in a California church rectory, and asked the Vatican in a letter that Kiesle be defrocked and wrote in part “It does seem clear now, with hindsight, that quite probably Father Kiesle should never have been ordained."
Four years later, then Cardinal Ratzinger said the case needed more time and that "it [was] necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church."
When retired Bishop Cummins, then 83, was asked about the letters he at first said he did not remember but when shown letters with his signature he agreed.
“I'm somewhat protective of what we did obviously, but I am also protective of what Rome did. They were working in an entirely different world," said Cummins.
Significantly, not once in all the letters to the Vatican do they reply “not my pigs, not my farm,” in Latin of course it would be Non meus volutabrum non meus agri. In all cases they take possession of the problem and invariably decide against the wishes of their own Bishops. Leaving no doubt in the Bishop’s and anyone else's minds that pedophiles are a protected species in the Catholic Church.
As indeed they are, as they all know that is why only the cases like 200 deaf boys and egregious multiple victim cases are sent to the Vatican. The rest are simply ignored by the Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals and the priests kept on.
Ratzinger, whom the apologists claim had no authority over the Bishops in these matters, showed diminished supply of empathy and common sense, as in every case he overrode his Bishops and Cardinals wishes and opted for them continue the cover up for the good of the Church.
This is only a partial list and only from the United States but even the most ardent believer in the Vatican lies will pause when the see the math.
Why did one hundred and eleven (111) heads of dioceses including eight (8) cardinals in forty (40) states all decide that they should just cover up the scandal independently?
Why did they they all, to a man, keep sexual predator priests on the job after admissions of wrongdoing, sexual disorder diagnoses, legal settlements and criminal convictions?
What was it?
a) Each of the 111, independently with their advisers consulting their consciences and reaching the same conclusion or
b) being good soldiers followed orders
Why did they only involved the Vatican when the evil was even too much for them to stomach, their natural humanity resisting the warping of their consciences, refusing to obey the rules of their church. They refused to cover up the destruction of so many young lives.
Sadly, even those few, although they numbered in the hundreds if not thousands on two continents, even that small sample that would soon sicken the decent people of the entire world, were of no consequence to the empathy challenged Ratzinger.
I do not believe a normal human being could behave in that way, but then I cannot get into the mind of the religious. The Jones town cultists, to the horror of the world, sacrificed their own children feeding them them poisoned Kool Aide for the promise of the after life with their leader. How may Irish mothers covered up the robbing of the innocence of their own children from fear of retribution if they spoke out, from the church and centuries conditioned congregation?
Anyone with so lacking in empathy is a psychopath, but do you also have a pedophile Pope?
Is this man you all seek to protect, to absolve, to excuse, perhaps even worship? At the time of the Great Schism, they recognised that the real scheme was to add a Universal Pope, whom, even then, they knew would soon become the God/Pope figure for the simple unimaginative peasants.
A senior lay Catholic, who asked not to be named, said: “It is very hard to be a Catholic nowadays. We are meant to be following the Lord.”
He said that he felt as ashamed now as he had when the mother of a nine-year-old girl who had become pregnant with twins after being raped by her stepfather was excommunicated when she allowed doctors to abort the babies. The doctors were also excommunicated, but the stepfather suffered no penalty from the Church.
The brutalizing of children is more and more a commonplace in that religion/cult that embraces sin, peddles fear, and dehumanizes it adherents as surely as it violates the bodies and minds of their young. There is a special place for those perverted misogynist sadist in robes that try to force a nine year old girl with twins from a brutal rape to destroy her little body and even bring about her death in child birth.
But let someone throw a small piece of bread in the trash – they are condemned by Bell, Book and Candle as Satan’s spawn and immediately barred from eating flesh and drinking blood, condemned to saunas in lakes of fire and suffer the torments of the damned for eternity and three days more; quite bizarre but sadly indisputable.
Ratzinger’s dogma is more important than life itself. Could your Satan be more diabolical?
How can any woman put herself under such a man’s authority?
Finally:
The abuse cases of two priests in Arizona have cast further doubt on the Catholic Church insistence that Pope Benedict played no role in shielding pedophiles before he became pope.
Documents reviewed by The Associated Press show that as a Vatican cardinal, the future pope took over the abuse case of the Rev. Michael Teta of Tucson, and then let it languish at the Vatican for years despite repeated pleas from the bishop for the man to be removed from the priesthood.
In another Tucson case, that of Msgr. Robert Trupia, the bishop wrote to then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who would become pope in 2005. Bishop Manuel Moreno called Trupia "a major risk factor to the children, adolescents and adults that he may have contact with." There is no indication in the case files that Ratzinger even responded.
Christopher Hitchen seems to be right “The pope's entire career has the stench of evil about it”
RE: Christopher Hitchen seems to be right “The pope’s entire career has the stench of evil about it”
Quoting atheists says a whole lot.
Just more from the useful idiots to further the atheistic progressive agenda.
Too bad the rebuttal is being left to Hitchens and Dawkins, as if the only people who are alarmed by this scandal are atheists.
Where are the leaders of other churches?
The Cardinal overrode no one, except in your fevered imagination. Was he ruling on the matter of the offense or whether a priest can through his own choice break his vows? Certainly if he can do this, he can break his baptismal vows. Finally when you quote Hutchins, remember you are quoting Hitler.
WOW.
Just wow.
For the same reason our political administration pushed thru a bill nobody wanted.....money and the political fallout or gain by doing this...on backs of the american people. Never was about the people...no more than going after this man was about the children............... Power and corruption all the way to the top!
In short: in terms of child-protection, "defrocking" is completely irrelevant. What people seem to mean by the term is that the priest must not be relieved of any priestly assignment, must not be allowed to exercise priestly faculties, and must ---if he is credibly accused of crime--- we reported to authorities.
Now listen up. All of this is done by the diocesan bishop. Not by the Pope. That's as of "then" (whenever "then" may be in these cases: 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago) and as of now.
And that's what most people think they mean by "defrocking."
Actually "defrocking" is not a canonical term at all. Any additional steps of laicization, would accomplish this:
Removal of the priest from his vows of obedience to the Bishop (resulting in even less supervision); and release from the obligation of celibacy: which would allow him to marry.
"Defrocking" is a term that should not be used because it is a sloppy journalistic term that actually has no equivalent in the Catholic Church.
The relevant child-protective measures (relieving the priest of all assignments; suspending his faculties; calling the cops) is ALL DONE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
What remains for Rome to do, is, as far as public impact goes, irrelevant, a technicality.
Do you get that?
And men who have actually been laicized, AND MARRIED, have gone on to abuse kids while laicized and married. As I think you know.
Goodbye for now. I'll check in tomorrow.
Let me try again. Everybody wants an abusive priest "fired", right?
"Fired" could mean three things:
#2 is local. It is done by a bishop.
#3 can be done locally, but (before 2001) went to Rome if the was an appeal, or if there was a complication havcing to do with abuse of Confession (a separate, and very serious offense.)
#1 and #2 are necessary to protect children. (The cops should be called too.) #3 is irrelevant to child protection, because it is matter of being released from vows. Releasing an abusive man from vows of obedience and celibacy does not, of itself, protect children.
#1 and #2, plus contacting the cops/civil authorities, is what protects children. And this is 100% local, and 0% Rome.
Is that clear?