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
Monday 15 April 2024
Five of the Medjugorje visionaries in the first year of the apparitions in 1981
When did you become aware of the existence of the Paedophile Information Exchange? Were you aware that the Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties? If you were aware of the existence of the Paedophile Information Exchange and aware that the Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties what steps did you take to disassociate the Left from endorsing the PIE? GENE
[A] These are not "vital" questions for me, Gene. They are, rather, a desperate attempt to salvage from the wreck of your defeated attempts to smear me as a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange, of paedophilia and or paedophiles.
[B] I cannot remember when I became aware of the Paedophile Information Exchange, but it was probably at the same time as most newspaper readers did in the mid 1970s - around 1976.
[C] I honestly cannot remember if I knew that the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL until the controversy over this affiliation made headlines, so this was probably in about 1978.
[D] I took no steps whatsoever to dissociate "the Left" from endorsing the Paedophile Information Exchange, for the simple reason that "the Left" does not exist. Neither the Parliamentary Labour Party nor the Labour Party itself ever associated itself with the Paedophile Information Exchange, so no steps needed to be taken to sever a connection that had never existed.
Gene, do stop making a complete tit of yourself, there's a good lad. Your humiliating trouncing over Ratzinger, his failure to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985 "for the good of the Catholic Church", and his thereby enabling Keisle's subsequent freedom to rape small girls and bugger small boys at St Joseph's Church, Pinole, California for a further three years must have done a great deal of damage to even your ironclad self-esteem.
But this fatuous attempt at smearing me suggests encroaching derangement on your part, not least because I have already disposed of your previous attempts to do so, and because you yourself have said, on April 13th at 1241 BST:
"No one believes you support paedophilia."
If you said that then, why pursue this preposterous attempt to smear me now? How much have you had to drink today?
And just in case you have forgotten, in your drunken stupor, just how completely I refuted your ridiculous smears, have another look at this.
"You repeatedly tried to smear me, because I am left wing, as an apologist for paedophilia and a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange. I repudiated these smears and disproved their validity. I challenged you nine times to answer three simple questions as to my stance on paedophilia and you evaded answering them. Because you are too cowardly to put your money where your mouth is. You claimed that my “failure to condemn the NCCL motion on paedophile” “spoke volumes” - but challenged to spell out what this “failure” actually said, you were too gutless to answer. And finally you were forced to admit that I do not support paedophilia, in effect disowning the vile smears you had been trying and failing to make stick for three days. Even then then you tried to weasel out of your responsibility for those atrocious slurs by claiming that you were “giving me a taste of my own medicine”. Nonsense: you were trying to push the evidence of your defeat over Ratzinger and Stephen Kiesle off the front page.
And anent Ratzinger, it is time that you stopped telling the ridiculous lie that Dawkins et al had threatened to have Ratzinger arrested - a lie that Mr Dawkins eventually forced the Murdoch press to retract - look it up. Dawkins et al claimed that Ratzinger’s complaisance and failure to act over paedophile priests meant that he had a case to answer in the civil courts. The truth of this has been demonstrated several times using Ratzinger’s failures to deal condignly with paedophile priests, as Archbishop of Munich, head of the Congregation of the Faith and as Pope. The enthusiastic reception accorded to Ratzinger by the Catholic faithful cannot and does not mitigate these criminal failures on his part.
And you claim “victory”? if this is victory, what would defeat look like?"
Had Ratzinger unfrocked Kiesle in 1985, the abuse of children at St Joseph's would not have continued for a further three years. That is a FACT, no matter how often you try to deny it.
Ratzinger's apology in full reads as follows [my footnotes}:
“I can only express to all the victims [1] of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness. I have had great responsibilities [2] in the Catholic Church. All the greater is my pain for the abuses [3] and the errors [4] hat occurred in those different places [5] during the time of my mandate."[6]
1 ALL THE VICTIMS, Gene: victimS, plural: you can tell this by the S on the end of the word. All the victims of sexual abuse that occurred during Ratzingers time as Archbishop of Munich [1977- 1982] and later head of the Congregation of the Faith and Pope - that is, 1985 - 2013. The phrase "ALL THE VICTIMS therefore must include the victims of Stephen Kiesle between the years 1985-1988, when Ratzinger failed to unfrock Kiesle. [2] I HAVE HAD GREAT RESPONSIBILITES [see 1 above]: and one of those was to detect, root out and expel priests and others in the Catholic Church whose favourite hobby was buggering small boys and raping little girls. These GREAT RESPONSIBILITIES obviously include those children abused by Stephen Kiesle after Ratzinger failed to unfrock him in 1985. [3] THE ABUSES - these must include the abuses committed by Stephen Kiesle after Ratzinger failed to unfrock him [unless you can prove differently, Gene?]. [4] THE ERRORS - these must include Ratzinger's failure to unfrock Kiesle in 1985 and probably his failure to alert Fr Thomas Ryan that he was allowing a convicted paedophile rapist to minister to the young people in his church. [5] THOSE DIFFERENT PLACES - except, of course at St Joseph's Church, Penole, CA, where Stephen Kiesle, still a priest, continued to abuse children during the years 1985-1988 - Ratzinger made it clear that his apology did not include this, didn't he, Gene, and you can prove that, can't you? What's that? oh, you can't? Dear me, and YOU call ME a lying tosser... [5] DURING MY MANDATE: that is, during the years 1985 - 2013.
It is clear to anyone whose mind has a greater ratiocinatory capacity than a pair of skid-marked underpants that Ratzinger was apologising for all the sexual abuse committed on his watch 1985-2013 by priests whom he failed either properly to oversee, accurately to diagnose and condignly to punish, as well as arranging for their being unable to access children and young people ever again.
"I can only express to ALL the victims of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness." It's that word ALL that gives it away, Gene: I'm sorry if it's confusing. Stuff your pissy little opinions up your arse. 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]
"The genius of James Joyce is alive and well and living amongst us. His name is Gene Vincent." [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.
If you said that then, why pursue this preposterous attempt to smear me now?"
No one was or is attempting to smear you. What I am trying to do is to get you to address the involvement of the pinko/liberal Left in condoning/supporting this most vile organisation the PIE. And the hypocrisy of these people attacking the Catholic Church for the very activity that they promote.
It’s not so much that you lie and lie and lie so as not to take responsibility for your vicious nastiness, as the effrontery you show in insulting my intelligence by expecting me to believe lies of this ineptitude.,
You spent four days trying to smear me as a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange and a supporter of paedophilia. Why else would you say that “your silence on the matter speaks volumes?” - and then refuse to say of what my silence spoke? Why else did you refuse twelve times to answer three simple closed questions about my attitude to paedophilia?
Neither of which is as important as the fact that “the pinko-liberal left” did not support the Paedophile Information Exchange or paedophiles. Several left wing individuals involved in the NCCL behaved deplorably over PIE’s membership - of the NCCL, not the Labour Party - fifty years ago. These individuals represented themselves, not the Labour Party. To conclude that that behaviour amounts to the support of the liberal left for paedophilia is like saying that, because you, a Catholic, are a two-faced, dirty-minded, lying and thoroughly nasty bigot, that all Catholics are two-faced, dirty-minded, lying and thoroughly nasty bigots - a demonstrably nonsensical proposition, thank God.
The truth is that having been thoroughly defeated in the Ratzinger-Kiesle business you were desperate to retrieve your humiliation and, given your seventh rate mind, picked on the stupidity of Harman. Dromey and Hewitt half a century ago as proof that left wing politics and support for paedophilia are part of socialism’s belief system. Deranged nonsense but only to be expected of a dipsomaniac narcissist with delusions of adequacy. It is this kind of behaviour on your part that is deeply worrying - a man with such fragile self-esteem as yours, unable to admit that he is ever wrong about anything is well on the way to full blown psychosis.
"And the hypocrisy of these people attacking the Catholic Church for the very activity that they promote."
Either provide documentary evidence of the NCCL attacking the Catholic Church on the grounds of unpunished paedophile activity by its priests whilst at the same time promoting paedophilia, or stop talking crap AGAIN, Gene. Any documented example of such an attack between the years 1974 - 1984 when the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL will do. And by documented example I don't mean invented bollocks from the Daily Mail.
Gene, what is it that terrifies you to admit that you are wrong, that you have completely been out-argued? And why do you persist in posting in so many identities when it is perfectly clear that I am the only person who reads this nonsense of a blog - it would be funny were it not so piteously sad.
As for the latest Nando nonsense. Ratzinger apologised to ALL the victims of ALL abuse by ALL priests committed during his mandates as Archbishop of Munich, head of the Congregation of Faith and as Pope.
Stop making a complete tit of yourself, do, there’s a good lad.
"Ratzinger apologised to ALL the victims of ALL abuse by ALL priests committed during his mandates as Archbishop of Munich, head of the Congregation of Faith and as Pope."
Yes because he was the decent and honorable man that he was he apologized for all. That did not mean that he was involved in all the cases or that he bore personal guilt for any. Pope Benedict was such a saintly man that I do not believe that he had anything to be personally guilty about.
Have you never stopped and thought about why no one but you and Dawkins believe the nonsense you spout?
Pope Benedict would not have been greeted with such affection on his visit to Britain if any of what you claim were true.
Remember 2010 and how Benedict brushed aside the New Atheists and their evil desire to have him arrested?
No, Gene, repeating bollocks does not stop it from being bollocks. Ratzinger’s apology made no distinction between cases where he had direct responsibility for concealing paedophilia and enabling its continuance ( such as the case of Stephen Keisle ) and others of which he was informed in retrospect - cases in which he condoned the disgraceful use of NDAs to silence victims as the price for their accepting bribes as compensation.- just as vile and deplorable.
As for only Dawkins and myself thinking that Ratzinger’s behaviour was criminal, once again. don’t insult my intelligence.
Dawkins et al did not threaten to have Ratzinger arrested, a lie that even the Murdoch press retracted - why do you keep repeating a blatant lie when you know it’s a lie?
As for Ratzinger’s reception in the UK somehow undoing his criminal incompetence over paedophile priests, am I meant to take seriously? The Catholic faithful would have greeted a BABOON dressed as the pope with similar rapture, just as they greeted the oafish peasant John 23 in the 1950s
Here’s Professor Richard Dawkins your fellow-traveller Detterling, published in the Washington Post and on his own website, which he describe as a “clear-thinking oasis”:
‘… As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly - ideally - qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.’
This is pretty nasty stuff Mr Dawkins. And full of falsehood. Pope Benedict, possessor of one of the most outstanding intellects of our time, has never preached any scientific falsehood or is he any more responsible than you or I for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa.
More smear tactics, Gene, why do you bother? You know perfectly well that I do not “ally myself” with Mr Dawkins, nor am I his fellow traveller, as I have said. I think him to be an outstandingly unpleasant piece of work - nearly as nasty and vicious as you are, in fact.
That being said, he nailed Ratzinger’s disgraceful behaviour over Fr Kiesle precisely. Requested to unfrock a proven rapist he refused to do so “for the greater good of the church”. His analogy of a Minister of Education refusing to remove a teacher proven to have raped pupils was un-nervingly exact and completely ungainsayable. Which was why all you could do in reply was to try and laugh it out of court, an attempt doomed to fail.
When are you going to stop reinforcing your failure over Ratzinger and the Paedophile Information Exchange, Gene? Watching this abject scrabbling about to make something discreditable stick to me reminds me of Samuel Pepys writing about a man marrying a woman on whom he had fathered a bastard: “it is as if a man should shit in his hat, and then clap it on his head…”
Vital questions for Detterling:
ReplyDeleteWhen did you become aware of the existence of the Paedophile Information Exchange?
Were you aware that the Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties?
If you were aware of the existence of the Paedophile Information Exchange and aware that the Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties what steps did you take to disassociate the Left from endorsing the PIE? GENE
[A] These are not "vital" questions for me, Gene. They are, rather, a desperate attempt to salvage from the wreck of your defeated attempts to smear me as a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange, of paedophilia and or paedophiles.
[B] I cannot remember when I became aware of the Paedophile Information Exchange, but it was probably at the same time as most newspaper readers did in the mid 1970s - around 1976.
[C] I honestly cannot remember if I knew that the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL until the controversy over this affiliation made headlines, so this was probably in about 1978.
[D] I took no steps whatsoever to dissociate "the Left" from endorsing the Paedophile Information Exchange, for the simple reason that "the Left" does not exist. Neither the Parliamentary Labour Party nor the Labour Party itself ever associated itself with the Paedophile Information Exchange, so no steps needed to be taken to sever a connection that had never existed.
Gene, do stop making a complete tit of yourself, there's a good lad. Your humiliating trouncing over Ratzinger, his failure to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985 "for the good of the Catholic Church", and his thereby enabling Keisle's subsequent freedom to rape small girls and bugger small boys at St Joseph's Church, Pinole, California for a further three years must have done a great deal of damage to even your ironclad self-esteem.
But this fatuous attempt at smearing me suggests encroaching derangement on your part, not least because I have already disposed of your previous attempts to do so, and because you yourself have said, on April 13th at 1241 BST:
"No one believes you support paedophilia."
If you said that then, why pursue this preposterous attempt to smear me now? How much have you had to drink today?
And just in case you have forgotten, in your drunken stupor, just how completely I refuted your ridiculous smears, have another look at this.
ReplyDelete"You repeatedly tried to smear me, because I am left wing, as an apologist for paedophilia and a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange. I repudiated these smears and disproved their validity. I challenged you nine times to answer three simple questions as to my stance on paedophilia and you evaded answering them. Because you are too cowardly to put your money where your mouth is. You claimed that my “failure to condemn the NCCL motion on paedophile” “spoke volumes” - but challenged to spell out what this “failure” actually said, you were too gutless to answer. And finally you were forced to admit that I do not support paedophilia, in effect disowning the vile smears you had been trying and failing to make stick for three days. Even then then you tried to weasel out of your responsibility for those atrocious slurs by claiming that you were “giving me a taste of my own medicine”. Nonsense: you were trying to push the evidence of your defeat over Ratzinger and Stephen Kiesle off the front page.
And anent Ratzinger, it is time that you stopped telling the ridiculous lie that Dawkins et al had threatened to have Ratzinger arrested - a lie that Mr Dawkins eventually forced the Murdoch press to retract - look it up. Dawkins et al claimed that Ratzinger’s complaisance and failure to act over paedophile priests meant that he had a case to answer in the civil courts. The truth of this has been demonstrated several times using Ratzinger’s failures to deal condignly with paedophile priests, as Archbishop of Munich, head of the Congregation of the Faith and as Pope. The enthusiastic reception accorded to Ratzinger by the Catholic faithful cannot and does not mitigate these criminal failures on his part.
And you claim “victory”? if this is victory, what would defeat look like?"
And, lest we forget:
ReplyDeleteHad Ratzinger unfrocked Kiesle in 1985, the abuse of children at St Joseph's would not have continued for a further three years. That is a FACT, no matter how often you try to deny it.
Ratzinger's apology in full reads as follows [my footnotes}:
“I can only express to all the victims [1] of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness. I have had great responsibilities [2] in the Catholic Church. All the greater is my pain for the abuses [3] and the errors [4] hat occurred in those different places [5] during the time of my mandate."[6]
1 ALL THE VICTIMS, Gene: victimS, plural: you can tell this by the S on the end of the word. All the victims of sexual abuse that occurred during Ratzingers time as Archbishop of Munich [1977- 1982] and later head of the Congregation of the Faith and Pope - that is, 1985 - 2013. The phrase "ALL THE VICTIMS therefore must include the victims of Stephen Kiesle between the years 1985-1988, when Ratzinger failed to unfrock Kiesle. [2] I HAVE HAD GREAT RESPONSIBILITES [see 1 above]: and one of those was to detect, root out and expel priests and others in the Catholic Church whose favourite hobby was buggering small boys and raping little girls. These GREAT RESPONSIBILITIES obviously include those children abused by Stephen Kiesle after Ratzinger failed to unfrock him in 1985. [3] THE ABUSES - these must include the abuses committed by Stephen Kiesle after Ratzinger failed to unfrock him [unless you can prove differently, Gene?].
[4] THE ERRORS - these must include Ratzinger's failure to unfrock Kiesle in 1985 and probably his failure to alert Fr Thomas Ryan that he was allowing a convicted paedophile rapist to minister to the young people in his church.
[5] THOSE DIFFERENT PLACES - except, of course at St Joseph's Church, Penole, CA, where Stephen Kiesle, still a priest, continued to abuse children during the years 1985-1988 - Ratzinger made it clear that his apology did not include this, didn't he, Gene, and you can prove that, can't you? What's that? oh, you can't? Dear me, and YOU call ME a lying tosser... [5] DURING MY MANDATE: that is, during the years 1985 - 2013.
It is clear to anyone whose mind has a greater ratiocinatory capacity than a pair of skid-marked underpants that Ratzinger was apologising for all the sexual abuse committed on his watch 1985-2013 by priests whom he failed either properly to oversee, accurately to diagnose and condignly to punish, as well as arranging for their being unable to access children and young people ever again.
"I can only express to ALL the victims of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness." It's that word ALL that gives it away, Gene: I'm sorry if it's confusing. Stuff your pissy little opinions up your arse. 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]
"The genius of James Joyce is alive and well and living amongst us. His name is Gene Vincent." [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.
Ratzinger's apology in full reads as follows...
DeleteCardinal Ratzinger never mentions the Stephen Kiesle case in this apology.
Sugarboy Nadndo
""No one believes you support paedophilia."
ReplyDeleteIf you said that then, why pursue this preposterous attempt to smear me now?"
No one was or is attempting to smear you. What I am trying to do is to get you to address the involvement of the pinko/liberal Left in condoning/supporting this most vile organisation the PIE. And the hypocrisy of these people attacking the Catholic Church for the very activity that they promote.
GENE
It’s not so much that you lie and lie and lie so as not to take responsibility for your vicious nastiness, as the effrontery you show in insulting my intelligence by expecting me to believe lies of this ineptitude.,
ReplyDeleteYou spent four days trying to smear me as a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange and a supporter of paedophilia. Why else would you say that “your silence on the matter speaks volumes?” - and then refuse to say of what my silence spoke? Why else did you refuse twelve times to answer three simple closed questions about my attitude to paedophilia?
Neither of which is as important as the fact that “the pinko-liberal left” did not support the Paedophile Information Exchange or paedophiles. Several left wing individuals involved in the NCCL behaved deplorably over PIE’s membership - of the NCCL, not the Labour Party - fifty years ago. These individuals represented themselves, not the Labour Party. To conclude that that behaviour amounts to the support of the liberal left for paedophilia is like saying that, because you, a Catholic, are a two-faced, dirty-minded, lying and thoroughly nasty bigot, that all Catholics are two-faced, dirty-minded, lying and thoroughly nasty bigots - a demonstrably nonsensical proposition, thank God.
The truth is that having been thoroughly defeated in the Ratzinger-Kiesle business you were desperate to retrieve your humiliation and, given your seventh rate mind, picked on the stupidity of Harman. Dromey and Hewitt half a century ago as proof that left wing politics and support for paedophilia are part of socialism’s belief system. Deranged nonsense but only to be expected of a dipsomaniac narcissist with delusions of adequacy. It is this kind of behaviour on your part that is deeply worrying - a man with such fragile self-esteem as yours, unable to admit that he is ever wrong about anything is well on the way to full blown psychosis.
"And the hypocrisy of these people attacking the Catholic Church for the very activity that they promote."
DeleteEither provide documentary evidence of the NCCL attacking the Catholic Church on the grounds of unpunished paedophile activity by its priests whilst at the same time promoting paedophilia, or stop talking crap AGAIN, Gene.
Any documented example of such an attack between the years 1974 - 1984 when the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL will do. And by documented example I don't mean invented bollocks from the Daily Mail.
Christ, when will you ever learn?
Ratzinger's apology in full reads as follows...
ReplyDeleteCardinal Ratzinger never mentions the Stephen Kiesle case in this apology.
Sugarboy Nando
Gene, what is it that terrifies you to admit that you are wrong, that you have completely been out-argued? And why do you persist in posting in so many identities when it is perfectly clear that I am the only person who reads this nonsense of a blog - it would be funny were it not so piteously sad.
DeleteAs for the latest Nando nonsense. Ratzinger apologised to ALL the victims of ALL abuse by ALL priests committed during his mandates as Archbishop of Munich, head of the Congregation of Faith and as Pope.
Stop making a complete tit of yourself, do, there’s a good lad.
"Ratzinger apologised to ALL the victims of ALL abuse by ALL priests committed during his mandates as Archbishop of Munich, head of the Congregation of Faith and as Pope."
DeleteYes because he was the decent and honorable man that he was he apologized for all. That did not mean that he was involved in all the cases or that he bore personal guilt for any. Pope Benedict was such a saintly man that I do not believe that he had anything to be personally guilty about.
Have you never stopped and thought about why no one but you and Dawkins believe the nonsense you spout?
Pope Benedict would not have been greeted with such affection on his visit to Britain if any of what you claim were true.
Remember 2010 and how Benedict brushed aside the New Atheists and their evil desire to have him arrested?
GENE
No, Gene, repeating bollocks does not stop it from being bollocks. Ratzinger’s apology made no distinction between cases where he had direct responsibility for concealing paedophilia and enabling its continuance ( such as the case of Stephen Keisle ) and others of which he was informed in retrospect - cases in which he condoned the disgraceful use of NDAs to silence victims as the price for their accepting bribes as compensation.- just as vile and deplorable.
DeleteAs for only Dawkins and myself thinking that Ratzinger’s behaviour was criminal, once again. don’t insult my intelligence.
Dawkins et al did not threaten to have Ratzinger arrested, a lie that even the Murdoch press retracted - why do you keep repeating a blatant lie when you know it’s a lie?
As for Ratzinger’s reception in the UK somehow undoing his criminal incompetence over paedophile priests, am I meant to take seriously? The Catholic faithful would have greeted a BABOON dressed as the pope with similar rapture, just as they greeted the oafish peasant John 23 in the 1950s
Here’s Professor Richard Dawkins your fellow-traveller Detterling, published in the Washington Post and on his own website, which he describe as a “clear-thinking oasis”:
ReplyDelete‘… As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly - ideally - qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.’
This is pretty nasty stuff Mr Dawkins. And full of falsehood. Pope Benedict, possessor of one of the most outstanding intellects of our time, has never preached any scientific falsehood or is he any more responsible than you or I for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa.
GENE
So this is the sort of person you align yourself with Detterling? You ought to be utterly ashamed of yourself.
ReplyDeleteMary Winterbourne
More smear tactics, Gene, why do you bother? You know perfectly well that I do not “ally myself” with Mr Dawkins, nor am I his fellow traveller, as I have said. I think him to be an outstandingly unpleasant piece of work - nearly as nasty and vicious as you are, in fact.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, he nailed Ratzinger’s disgraceful behaviour over Fr Kiesle precisely. Requested to unfrock a proven rapist he refused to do so “for the greater good of the church”. His analogy of a Minister of Education refusing to remove a teacher proven to have raped pupils was un-nervingly exact and completely ungainsayable. Which was why all you could do in reply was to try and laugh it out of court, an attempt doomed to fail.
When are you going to stop reinforcing your failure over Ratzinger and the Paedophile Information Exchange, Gene? Watching this abject scrabbling about to make something discreditable stick to me reminds me of Samuel Pepys writing about a man marrying a woman on whom he had fathered a bastard: “it is as if a man should shit in his hat, and then clap it on his head…”
Change the record, Gene. This one is worn out.