Detterling you posted these lies about Cardinal Ratzinger. You won't get away with it...
"The FACT remains that Joseph Ratzinger, petitioned to unfrock a priest who, remaining in the priesthood because of his refusal to do so, or to arrange for someone else to do so, effectively excused, concealed and connived at the rape of buggery of small children."
Absolute malicious lies.
Cardinal Ratzinger was first alerted about this priest when he was asked in 1985 to arbitrate on Kiesle's petition for laiziation - an abstruse area in Canon Law. Kiesle had not been allowed to act as a priest since charged with heinous offences in 1978. He was never allowed to act as a priest again. The Church acted properly here. When he was convicted in 1979 the State of California did not put Kiesle on the sex offenders register - something you de facto condone Detterling. Put the blame where it lies. Had the State of California put this wretched man on the sex offenders register he would not have had access to children.
Apologise for you lies Detterling.
And Dawkins - well, we all know his problem. He and his fellow New Atheists boasted that they would have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he came to Britain. They were brushed aside in the tidal wave of affection that greeted Pope Benedict. The New Atheists never recovered from this humiliation.
"was one reason why Kiesle was able to go on raping and buggering small boys for a further year at Penole."
ReplyDeleteYou lying so-and-so. Kiesle was not working as a priest since 1978.
Gene
In my opinion Dawkins and Detterling should be horsewhipped for propagating such malicious lies.
ReplyDeleteOf course no one believed or believes this calumny. Hence the tidal wave of affection to Pope Benedict in 2010 which brushed aside the New Atheists.
Mary Winterbourne
Why do you persist in this fatuous sock puppetry, Gene? This is incipient lunacy.
Delete"Of course no one believed or believes this calumny. Hence the tidal wave of affection to Pope Benedict in 2010 which brushed aside the New Atheists."
ReplyDeleteSpot on Mary!
Detterling do the decent thing and apologize.
Ducky Duckworth
Gene, you are insane. It’s the only explanation for your purblind denial of the facts of Kiesle’s case, of Ratzinger’s irresponsibility, obsession with covering up the sexual abuse of children by priests in his own archdiocese and later, as pope, throughout the world wide church. By concealing such abuse he enabled it to continue. That is a FACT.
ReplyDeleteI can give no credence to vapourings from you about “doing the decent thing”. You wouldn’t recognise decency if it bit you on the arse. No fanatical supporter of the paedophile-protector and enabler Ratzinger has the right to use the word decency: they are no better than him. Chew on that. Gene, and see how you like it.
"Fr Kiesle, whilst still in holy orders, worked as a Youth Minister at St Joseph’s Church, Penole. California, under the supervision of the parish priest, Fr Thomas Ryan from 1985 -1988."
ReplyDeleteKiesle was not employed as a priest. Had he been put on the sex offenders register by the State of California he would not have been employed at all. Put the blame where it should go you so-and-so.
GENE
"FACT: Fr Kiesle, whilst still in holy orders, worked as a Youth Minister at St Joseph’s Church, Penole. California, under the supervision of the parish priest, Fr Thomas Ryan from 1985 -1988." "
ReplyDeleteWas he employed as a priest? No he wasn't!!!
Had California put him on the sex offenders register he would never have been employed in St Joseph's.
Stuffed again Detterling.
"And he was enabled to do so from 1987 onward because Ratzinger failed to unfrock him when he was asked to in 1987."
ReplyDeleteHe was not. He was defrocked in 1987.
Check your facts Detterling
The abuser who wanted to be defrocked
ReplyDeleteBY VICTORIA KIM APRIL 18, 2010 12 AM PT
In the early summer of 1978, police arrived at a Union City church looking for the younger of its two pastors, Stephen Kiesle. He was away, so officers informed the senior pastor, Father George Crespin, that Kiesle was wanted for molesting six children at the church and that there was a warrant for his arrest. When Kiesle returned to the city south of Oakland, Crespin confronted him with the allegations. Kiesle sighed. He seemed relieved, as if he had been waiting for this day to come, Crespin recalled. Kiesle surrendered to authorities and eventually pleaded no contest to criminal charges of molesting children. A few years later, in 1981, he asked to be defrocked, something that would require Vatican approval. Crespin thought Kiesle’s request, which was supported by the Diocese of Oakland, would be quickly granted.
But in a 1985 letter made public last week, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then the Vatican’s chief enforcer of doctrine and now Pope Benedict XVI, declined to immediately defrock Kiesle, citing the priest’s young age and the “good of the Universal Church.” It would be two more years before the Vatican finally granted the request. Crespin was shocked by Rome’s reluctance.
“We didn’t anticipate the obstacles that we were going to have to face in Rome,” Crespin recalled in an interview with The Times at his current church in Berkeley. “It was like a friendly divorce. . . . We thought, as they say in the sports world, that it was going to be a slam dunk. . . . It was so clear that this is what should be done, and to have [the Vatican] not see it that way was frustrating.”
The letter has become a flash point in the current debate over the pope’s handling of priestly abuse cases. But it was only one element of the response by the church hierarchy -- stretching from the East Bay to the Vatican -- to years of abuse at the hands of Kiesle. There remain questions today about how the case was handled. While the diocese was trying to have the priest defrocked, a pastor in the town of Pinole, north of Oakland, allowed Kiesle to volunteer at his church for seven years in various youth programs. He continued to serve at the church even after the Vatican finally removed him as a priest in 1987. The diocese insisted this week that it had no idea Kiesle was volunteering there until the matter was brought to Bishop John Cummins’ attention in 1988. Cummins then sent the church pastor a letter demanding that Kiesle immediately be removed. The pastor, who is now deceased, defended his decision at the time, telling the diocese there was no evidence Kiesle abused anyone while volunteering.
Kiesle was eventually removed as a church volunteer that year. Seven years later, authorities said he was again abusing. Kiesle grew up in San Jose, and acquaintances said he was drawn to the priesthood in part by his mother, a devout Catholic. When he was a young priest in the early 1970s, people said he resembled a 6-foot-tall teddy bear. He quickly became known for his empathy with children, playing guitar, telling engaging yarns and seeming to connect with young people in a way not many priests did. Across the Oakland Diocese, pastors called on him to help set up programs for children in their congregations.
“Kids followed him,” recalled Msgr. Antonio Valdivia, who worked with Kiesle briefly in Union City. “He was known for his work with the youth . . . energizing the kids, speaking their language, relating and connecting with them.”
continued
No one except you and Dawkins it seems believe this malice about Cardinal Ratzinger. Why did he get such a rapturous reception when he came to Britain in 2010 if any of this is true?
ReplyDeleteAnyone who looks at the detail in this case can see that whatever Cardinal Ratzinger did or did not do had any effect on the criminal predatory behaviour of this awful man.
Why your silence about the State of California's criminal negligence in this matter?
Pack it in Detterling. Apologize you so-and-so.
GENE
"No one except you and Dawkins it seems believe this malice about Cardinal Ratzinger."
ReplyDeleteNonsense: Benedict XV came under fire for his handling of the sexual abuse crisis that engulfed the Catholic church during his years as a senior cleric. A damning report published in January 2022 found that he knew about priests who abused children but failed to act when he was archbishop of Munich from 1977 to 1982.
In 2010, The New York Times reported that church officials, including Ratzinger, had failed to act in the case of a Wisconsin priest accused of molesting up to 200 boys. The Times reported that church officials stopped proceedings against the priest after he wrote to Ratzinger. Also in 2010, the Times reported that the future pope – while serving as the archbishop in Munich – had been copied on a memo informing him that a priest accused of molesting children was being returned to pastoral work. At the time, a spokesman for the archdiocese said Ratzinger received hundreds of memos a year, and it was highly unlikely that he had read it. Twelve years later, a Church-commissioned report into abuse by Catholic clergy in the diocese found that Ratzinger had as archbishop been informed of four cases of sexual abuse involving minors – including two that had taken place while he was in office – but failed to act.
In a letter published by the Vatican in February 2022, Benedict issued a general apology to survivors of abuse, writing: “Once again I can only express to all the victims of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness.” [Source CNN]
"Why did he get such a rapturous reception when he came to Britain in 2010 if any of this is true?"
Oh for fuck's sake Gene, GROW UP. HITLER got rapturous receptions everywhere he went long after people knew he was slaughtering Jews by the train load. Dear GOD, are you so out of arguments that this is the best you can do?
"Anyone who looks at the detail in this case can see that whatever Cardinal Ratzinger did or did not do had any effect on the criminal predatory behaviour of this awful man."
Bollocks. Asked to defrock Kiesle in 1985, Ratzinger did nothing until 1987, what time Kiesle was working with children as a Youth Minister.
In 1985, the diocese received a letter from the Vatican bearing the signature of then-Cardinal Ratzinger in response to the petition to have Kiesle defrocked. But it wasn’t what they had expected. The future pope, while acknowledging that the case for defrocking was of “grave significance,” wrote of the “detriment that [defrocking] can provoke within the community of Christ’s faithful” and said the Vatican’s review of Kiesle’s request would take more time and consideration. Two years later, the Vatican agreed to the defrocking. But Kiesle continued to work with children at the Pinole church."
Do you seriously imagine that an incorrigible paedophile like Kiesle kept his hands to himself during the three years from 1985-1988? And those three years of continued abuse were the direct result of Ratzinger's refusal to act. Stop being offensively stupid, Gene.
"Why your silence about the State of California's criminal negligence in this matter?" I have not been silent: I have said that it is inconceivable that Kiesle was not placed on the sex offenders' register at the time of his first conviction. But the fact that the State of California was preposterously negligent neither mitigates nor excuses Ratzinger's lack of action.
He should have moved to unfrock Kiesle when he was first asked in 1985, and he didn't, effectively conniving at Kiesle's sexual predation for the next two years. And continuing to deny it, to try to shift the entire blame onto the California legal code is to cut Ratzinger slack he doesn't begin to deserve.
"Pack it in Detterling." I will pack it in only when you acknowledge Ratzinger's criminal and moral responsibility in the matter of Kiesle's abusive behaviour between 1985 - 1987.
"Apologize you so-and-so." I will not apologise for telling the truth. Fuck off.
The entire blame rests on the California legal code. Cardinal Ratzinger cannot be blamed for Kiesle's evil crimes.
ReplyDeleteApologise for you lies Detterling.
Get your facts correct Detterling. The first that Cardinal Ratzinger heard of this vile man was when he petitioned for laicization in 1985.
ReplyDelete