Posted on 06/05/2010 5:20:03 PM PDT by grand wazoo
lol. No doubt some Roman Catholics believe that. People tend to see what they want to see.
Or don't see.
I posted then and now Crimen Sollicitationis in its entirety. Like Ratzinger's encyclical, the deadly lies are littered throughout.
I'm content to have people read it for themselves to know the truth. Towards that end, I would encourage RCs to actually read the documents and not just some papist commentary on it.
You wrote:
“lol. No doubt some Roman Catholics believe that. People tend to see what they want to see.”
That would explain why you completely made up what didn’t appear in the actual text.
“I posted then and now Crimen Sollicitationis in its entirety.”
And it did NOT say what you claimed it did. Also, I posted it in its entirety and the follow up document as well. And none of them said what you claimed. That’s why you repeatedly failed to post any evidence for what you claimed it said. Epic fail after epic fail after epic fail.
“Like Ratzinger’s encyclical, the deadly lies are littered throughout.”
Except you couldn’t post any that you claimed.
“I’m content to have people read it for themselves to know the truth.”
Apparently you were content to make claims about it without a single shred of evidence in thread after thread.
“Towards that end, I would encourage RCs to actually read the documents and not just some papist commentary on it.”
And they will discover that what you claimed never once appeared in the document.
And yet none of them did. Instead, they looked to the Vatican for help which generally resulted in being told to keep quiet and continue on as if nothing had happened.
The criminal matter was to be dealt with, totally and completely
Not if the police never knew about it. Not if the victim and his family were sworn to secrecy under threat of excommunication.
All the Holy See would have a hand in...
As evidence shows, the Holy See was told by one of its bishops that one of its priests was sexually molesting children, and the Holy See instructed that bishop to sit on that fact and not talk about it. To wait. "For the good of the universal church."
Sorry, Mrs. D. I don't have time to keep rebutting the vacuous, some would say evil defense of those who harbored and protected pederasts.
My suggestion is that you utilize all the time and effort you're spending defending the indefensible and put it to better use ridding your church of the pedophile mindset which obviously sees very little wrong with the status quo.
Read paragraphs 11, 13 and 42a.
Or don't and keep defending the indefensible.
On the contrary, it is unjust --- it is rash judgment --- to interpret texts by imputing the worst possible motivation, and to stick to that despite a sound and knowledgeable refutation.
Both Crimen S and the Ratzinger/CDF letter of 2001 deal with laicization. No canon law requires silence in criminal proceedings; no canon law forbids, or could forbid, legal prosecution in a civil or criminal court. That is is distinction which seems to elude you.
Even the "good of the Universal Church"--- the phrase used in the 2001 Ratzinger letter --- has to do with whether a symbolic canonical trial for a dying man is the only option, in view of the fact that a canonical trial is such a cumbersome and time-consuming procedure. In fact, one of Ratzinger's most significant reforms, once he got these matters re-directed into the CDF,was to try to find speedier ways to act on them decisively by lessening the "procedural due process" required by canonical trials.
I'm not going to pursue this here because I can grasp that you are not interested in canon law per se. About the vile wickedness of sexual assault, and the moral obligation to prosecute those who are guilty of it, we both agree. Strongly. Let's leave it at that.
I'll hold my work on Veritatis until I can post it on some other thread.
Back to watering the tomatoes. See tagline.
No, Mrs. D. You are incorrect.
The phrase "for the good of the universal church" was written by Ratzinger in his 1985 letter to the bishop who was asking for guidance regarding a pederast priest and who received nothing other than stonewalling and delay.
A letter written in 1985, when the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was the head of the Vatican's doctrinal unit, resists a request for the defrocking of an American priest with a record of molesting children, for the "good of the universal Church". The letter, published by Associated Press, also notes the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age". The priest, Father Stephen Kiesle, was 38 at the time......Pope Benedict XVI was hit by fresh allegations yesterday that he failed to crack down on sexually abusive Catholic priests before becoming pontiff.
I'm not going to pursue this here because I can grasp that you are not interested in canon law per se.
Not true. RC canon law that skirts and even contradicts the moral and legal jurisdiction of American jurisprudence is very important to me.
About the vile wickedness of sexual assault, and the moral obligation to prosecute those who are guilty of it, we both agree. Strongly.
Amen. I would hope that desire leads us both to a clearer intent to see justice done.
BTW, how are you feeling? IIRC you had quite a time awhile back. All recovered, hale and hearty? 8~)
I am past my surgeries and in good shape, thank you. I hope you are happy and healthy!
Yo, NordP, why don't you tell us all what the Pope actually said, and the context in which he said it, because the article certainly didn't.
You have an incredibly bad memory because Joseph Ratzinger was never a Nazi.
They won't believe it. There is no one on your cc list (with the exception of don-o) that hasn't been presented with more than sufficient proof to the contrary, yet they refuse to believe it. This clearly shows intent.
Because they clearly and irrefutably are, beginning with the OPC.
And thus he’s a fool.
The term "propaganda" only characterized the purpose that information is communicated; that is to influence. It has absolutely nothing to do with the voracity of the information.
And you take great liberties with your nonexistent authority to police the forum.
That is most likely because none of your family were enrolled in a Catholic Seminary.
WRONG.
I don’t know if he was or wasn’t. I wasn’t there.
If he was, I don’t know under what circumstances or motivation(s). Likewise if he wasn’t.
I prefer to take folks at face value in terms of what they assert about and how they live out their relationship with Jesus in the present.
I could wait for yours, too, but history can be an exacting teacher and so I've learned not to waste my time.
If or when I err I will apologize. That is more than can be said of those who spew vile lies about the pope's childhood.
So only Catholic Seminarians were forced to join?
Yes, it was mandated for Catholic youths in Semanaries per the Reichskonkordat, the concordat between the Holy See and Germany, guaranteeing the rights of the Catholic Church in Germany. It was signed on July 20, 1933 by Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli and Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen on behalf of Pope Pius XI and President Paul von Hindenburg respectively. Membership in the Hitler Youth was a requirement to counter or "balance" the influence of the Catholic Church.
Beyond that, beginning March 25, 1939, all German males 14 years old and older were required to participate in the Hitler Youth as a condition of enrollment and receipt of tuition in all schools. Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth, as membership was legally required.
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.