MISSION STATEMENT ... To celebrate where it's deserved! ... To take the Michael out of institutions and individuals where it's deserved! ...
Recently I had occasion to prepare my gravestone epitaph:
GENE...
Educator, Novelist,
Humanitarian and Humorist
- TO KNOW HIM WAS TO LOVE HIM -
Rest in Peace
....... But while I am still walking the earth do not hesitate to contact me at:
bobbyslingshot8@gmail.com
"Detterling you have a long history, both on the TES website and on my blog, of twisting others' words to suit your own nefarious purposes. Perhaps the most pernicious example of this concerns what I wrote about Delia. I wrote about mounting Delia from behind Doggy-style. You twisted this to make it appear that I had sodomised her." GENE
To which outstandingly crass, tone-deaf and dazzlingly nasty remarks, I replied:
"Because claiming that you had fucked my wife from behind was so much more tasteful than claiming you had sodomised her, wasn't it, Gene? a delicacy of expression to rival Jane Austen herself? you nasty, dirty minded little twat.
Only you, the nasty bastards' nasty bastard, could make such a dazzlingly crass remark. And you know perfectly well that I I knew perfectly well that you had not claimed to sodomise my wife. My repeated allegations were simply my way of paying you out in your own dud and bogus coinage - you find a way of inflicting pain and, when it works, you repeat it ad infinitum. If you can't take it, you shouldn't hand it out."
All of which was beside the point of Gene's vain and fruitless attempt to defend the indefensible Joseph Ratzinger.
Challenged four times to go ahead and disprove the facts below, Gene has instead resorted to his usual tactics of posting a new thread on an unrelated topic to try to push his humiliation down the page. What's the matter, Gene? the cat got your tongue?
You cannot go on denying facts, and these are the facts of the case regarding Ratzinger's involvement in concealing and enabling the continued sexual abuse of children by Fr. Stephen Kiesle between the years 1981 - 1988. These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute.
FACT: Kiesle himself asked the Vatican that he be unfrocked in 1981. FACT: Ratzinger did nothing about this for four years. FACT: in 1985, Ratzinger then refused to unfrock Kiesle on the grounds that to so would do no good to the church and bring detriment to faithful Catholics. FACT: In 1985, Ratzinger also sought to minimise the vileness of Kiesle’s crimes by describing the rape and buggery of young children as of “grave significance” rather than as the vicious and unforgivable assaults they were. FACT: Ratzinger then did nothing for two years - two years during which Kiesle, still in holy orders, continued to rape and bugger small children using his post as Youth Minister at St Joseph’s, Penole to get access to his victims.
Those are FACTS, Gene. And they place responsibility for Kiesle’s actions during those six years on Ratzinger.
I will not apologise for telling the truth, and I will go on telling it until you acknowledge that it is the truth.
In the meantime, I continue to wait for your answer to this:
"Detters can we leave A.N. WILSON and ARIANNA HUFFINGTON behind?"
Not until you have dealt honestly with this example of your lying bastardy:
'Gene writes beautifully - something not always the case with authors of trail-blazing literary works.' [A.N. WILSON]
'I was enthralled. A new star has shot into the literary firmament. [ARIANNA HUFFINGTON]
When you are going to admit that you have made these reviews and their authors up? Make no mistake: I am going to keep on asking until you tell the truth, or I lose patience, inform Mr Wilson and Ms Huffington and let nature take its course.
Detters have you ever read 'The Magic Mountain' by Thomas Mann? As a young man I did and thought it was utter bollocks. Years later I read it again and thought very differently.
One day in the future you may read Phil Lawler's article and feel very differently about it.
• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
A request made by Fr Kiesle himself. Any conscientious person in Ratzinger's position would have investigated the reason for Kiesle's request - that he planned to marry a wife, found it to be false, and investigated the matter thoroughly. Ratzinger didn't do his job properly because, as he had found as Archbishop of Munich, investigations can't always be relied upon not to tell you things you will subsequently need to conceal.
• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
Of course he did. He knew perfectly well that Kiesle had been convicted for sexual offences against children, and hoped that Kiesle's request on the spurious grounds that he wished to get married would enable that conviction to remain a secret.
• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
SIX YEARS after it had first been submitted. There can be no excuse for such a delay in a case where delay would risk further sexual abuse of children.
• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
The complaints laid against Kiesle in 2002 referenced 13 victims whose complaints covered the fourteen years after he had been prevented from continuing his Youth Ministry at St Joseph's in Penole when a lay person protested to the Parish Priest there, Fr Thomas Ryan.
• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
Which did not prevent Kiesle, still in holy orders, from volunteering as a Youth Minister at St Joseph's, Penole, where he continued his career of rape and buggery.
• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985, his Youth Ministry at St Joseph's would have been curtailed then, thus preventing his sexual predation on the children of St Joseph's for the next three years.
• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behaviour? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.
The civil courts of California may have destroyed that evidence, but the Vatican knew of Kiesle's crimes from 1981 onwards and concealed it.
On March 22nd, Gene Vincent wrote:
ReplyDelete"Detterling you have a long history, both on the TES website and on my blog, of twisting others' words to suit your own nefarious purposes. Perhaps the most pernicious example of this concerns what I wrote about Delia. I wrote about mounting Delia from behind Doggy-style. You twisted this to make it appear that I had sodomised her." GENE
To which outstandingly crass, tone-deaf and dazzlingly nasty remarks, I replied:
"Because claiming that you had fucked my wife from behind was so much more tasteful than claiming you had sodomised her, wasn't it, Gene? a delicacy of expression to rival Jane Austen herself? you nasty, dirty minded little twat.
Only you, the nasty bastards' nasty bastard, could make such a dazzlingly crass remark. And you know perfectly well that I I knew perfectly well that you had not claimed to sodomise my wife. My repeated allegations were simply my way of paying you out in your own dud and bogus coinage - you find a way of inflicting pain and, when it works, you repeat it ad infinitum. If you can't take it, you shouldn't hand it out."
All of which was beside the point of Gene's vain and fruitless attempt to defend the indefensible Joseph Ratzinger.
Challenged four times to go ahead and disprove the facts below, Gene has instead resorted to his usual tactics of posting a new thread on an unrelated topic to try to push his humiliation down the page. What's the matter, Gene? the cat got your tongue?
You cannot go on denying facts, and these are the facts of the case regarding Ratzinger's involvement in concealing and enabling the continued sexual abuse of children by Fr. Stephen Kiesle between the years 1981 - 1988. These are the facts of the case, and they are not in dispute.
FACT: Kiesle himself asked the Vatican that he be unfrocked in 1981.
FACT: Ratzinger did nothing about this for four years.
FACT: in 1985, Ratzinger then refused to unfrock Kiesle on the grounds that to so would do no good to the church and bring detriment to faithful Catholics.
FACT: In 1985, Ratzinger also sought to minimise the vileness of Kiesle’s crimes by describing the rape and buggery of young children as of “grave significance” rather than as the vicious and unforgivable assaults they were.
FACT: Ratzinger then did nothing for two years - two years during which Kiesle, still in holy orders, continued to rape and bugger small children using his post as Youth Minister at St Joseph’s, Penole to get access to his victims.
Those are FACTS, Gene. And they place responsibility for Kiesle’s actions during those six years on Ratzinger.
I will not apologise for telling the truth, and I will go on telling it until you acknowledge that it is the truth.
In the meantime, I continue to wait for your answer to this:
"Detters can we leave A.N. WILSON and ARIANNA HUFFINGTON behind?"
Not until you have dealt honestly with this example of your lying bastardy:
'Gene writes beautifully - something not always the case with authors of trail-blazing literary works.' [A.N. WILSON]
'I was enthralled. A new star has shot into the literary firmament. [ARIANNA HUFFINGTON]
When you are going to admit that you have made these reviews and their authors up? Make no mistake: I am going to keep on asking until you tell the truth, or I lose patience, inform Mr Wilson and Ms Huffington and let nature take its course.
Utter bollocks.
ReplyDelete"Utter bollocks."
DeleteOne day you may view this totally differently.
Detters have you ever read 'The Magic Mountain' by Thomas Mann? As a young man I did and thought it was utter bollocks. Years later I read it again and thought very differently.
One day in the future you may read Phil Lawler's article and feel very differently about it.
GENE
• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
ReplyDeleteA request made by Fr Kiesle himself. Any conscientious person in Ratzinger's position would have investigated the reason for Kiesle's request - that he planned to marry a wife, found it to be false, and investigated the matter thoroughly. Ratzinger didn't do his job properly because, as he had found as Archbishop of Munich, investigations can't always be relied upon not to tell you things you will subsequently need to conceal.
• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
Of course he did. He knew perfectly well that Kiesle had been convicted for sexual offences against children, and hoped that Kiesle's request on the spurious grounds that he wished to get married would enable that conviction to remain a secret.
• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
SIX YEARS after it had first been submitted. There can be no excuse for such a delay in a case where delay would risk further sexual abuse of children.
• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
The complaints laid against Kiesle in 2002 referenced 13 victims whose complaints covered the fourteen years after he had been prevented from continuing his Youth Ministry at St Joseph's in Penole when a lay person protested to the Parish Priest there, Fr Thomas Ryan.
• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
Which did not prevent Kiesle, still in holy orders, from volunteering as a Youth Minister at St Joseph's, Penole, where he continued his career of rape and buggery.
• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985, his Youth Ministry at St Joseph's would have been curtailed then, thus preventing his sexual predation on the children of St Joseph's for the next three years.
• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behaviour? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.
The civil courts of California may have destroyed that evidence, but the Vatican knew of Kiesle's crimes from 1981 onwards and concealed it.
Gene, the post above is a disgrace.