Ha! Ha! Ha! That's the biggest laugh I've had since that time back at the staff Christmas dinner in 1980 I put salt in the Headteacher's sugar bowl...
According to Detterling Geoffrey Robertson KC wrote the following:
"Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them."
Ha! Ha! Ha! That's the biggest laugh I've had since that time back at the staff Christmas dinner in 1980 I put salt in the Headteacher's sugar bowl...
My God! It's the way he tells 'em!
ReplyDeleteTony of the Big Saloon
Ha! Ha! Ha! What an outrageous hypothesis!
ReplyDeleteEven Detterling would not make such an outlandish allegation against Gene.
Mary Winterbourne
"Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them."
ReplyDeleteGood God! That worse than any of the madness featured on the documentary THE HAMPSTEAD PAEDOPHILE HOAX.
Ducky Duckworth.
"Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them."
ReplyDeleteI shall be forwarding this post to the Good Yarn Friday Night Club.
I can just imagine the uproarious laughter!
GENE
I can hardly believe it! Did Geoffrey Robertson KC really write this?
ReplyDeleteSebastian D'Orsai
Gene, you are, as usual, making a colossal tit of yourself. Either you haven't read the article - I suspect not, as you failed to notice that it was written by Richard Dawkins, or you have not understood it.
ReplyDeleteEither way, you are not going to get away with trying to laugh it off - what kind of shitbag tries to laugh off paedophilia? anyway,?
In the article, Mr Dawkins recounts the case of 38-year-old Catholic priest Father Kiesle, who tied up and raped two young boys aged 11 and 13. Kiesle's diocesan bishop urgently petitioned Ratzinger to unfrock him and thus enable criminal legal proceedings to be taken against him. Ratzinger refused, and these are his reasons in his own words [my capitals}:
"This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favour of removal [IE THE UNFROCKING OF KIESLE] in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH together with that of THE PETITIONER [FR KIESLE] and it is also unable to make light of THE DETRIMENT THAT GRANTING THE DISPENSATION CAN PROVOKE with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly REGARDING THE YOUNG AGE [KIESLE WAS 38] regarding the young age of the petitioner."
Ratzinger's reasons for not unfrocking this appalling man and turning him over to the legal authorities can be summarised as
[a] yes, this priest has done "significant" wrong - ie the rape of two young boys - but
[b] for the good of the church - ie so as not to make the church look bad in the public eye -
[c] and for the sake of Fr Kiesle's welfare - which is thus placed by Ratzinger as a priority over that of the two young boys
[d] and because of the detriment - ie harm - a public scandal might cause for the church
[e] and because at the age of 38 Gr Kiesle can reform and lead the life of chastity which he is committed
- because of all these reasons, Ratzinger refused to unfrock the priest, who remained in holy orders, was allowed to continue working with children and - worst of all - abused and molested many more children.
In effect, Ratzinger had excused the rape of under-age children and connived at its continuance in order to avoid further appalling scandal for a church already in severe trouble over child abuse. NOTHING can atone for that.
However, Mr Dawkins is only too aware of the blind loyalty of Catholic bigots like you, and aware that you too would make excuses for Ratzinger, so he illustrates the vileness of Ratzinger's behaviour by offered a FICTITIOUS comparison with what would happen in the secular world, as follows:
"Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them. Imagine that, instead of turning the matter over to the police, he had simply moved the offender from school to school, where he repeatedly raped other children. That would be bad enough. But now suppose that he justified his decision in terms such as these:
"Although I regard the arguments in favour of prosecution, presented by the local education authority, as of grave significance, I nevertheless deem it necessary to consider the good of the government and the party, together with that of the offending teacher. And I am also unable to make light of the detriment that prosecuting the offender can provoke among voters, particularly regarding the young age of the offender."
The analogy breaks down, only in that we aren't talking about a single offending priest, but many thousands, all over the world.
Why is the church allowed to get away with it, when any government minister who was caught writing such a letter would immediately have to resign in ignominy, and face prosecution himself? A religious leader, such as the pope, should be no different."
That is context of the sentence that you, and your grimy little posse of sock puppets, have found so uproariously funny.
You are filth, Gene, absolute filth.
"Either you haven't read the article - I suspect not, as you failed to notice that it was written by Richard Dawkins, or you have not understood it."
ReplyDeleteYes, I did read the article but was not aware that you were quoting the appalling Richard Dawkins. As always your comments are hardly examples of Churchillian clarity. I am glad it was not Geoffrey Robertson who put forward this ludicrous hypothesis.
Nevertheless it has given me such a laugh. I can't wait for a response from the lads in the Friday Night Club.
Both you and Richard Dawkins are never going to live this one down!
GENE
"Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them."
ReplyDeleteHa! Ha! Ha! It's the way he tells 'em
ou are being deliberately obtuse in order not to acknowledge the basic truth of Mr Dawkins's article, which is that had Joseph Ratzinger been Secretary of State for Education faced with the case of a teacher who had raped two small boys and acted as he did as Pope when faced with Mr Kiesle, then he would have found himself in court charged with aiding and abetting paedophilia. No amount of crass jeering and sniggering can alter that fact, and your inability to face speaks volumes about what an appallingly nasty person you are.
DeleteI apologize to Geoffrey Robertson KC that I misread Detterling's post.
ReplyDeleteGENE
Fr. Stephen Kiesle
ReplyDeleteORDAINED: 1972
Assignments:
1973-1975: St. Joseph’s, Pinole, CA
1974-1975: Contra Junior College, El Cerrito, CA
1975-1978: Pre-Seminary Advisory Board
1976-1978: Our Lady of Rosary, Union City, CA
1979: St. Columba’s, Oakland, CA
1979-1981: Active leave
1982-2018: Unknown
Fr. Stephen Kiesle has been accused of sexually abusing at least 15 children from approximately 1972 to 1995. In 1978, Fr. Kiesle was arrested for sexually abusing two boys and as a result, he was put on three years’ probation and received counseling. In 1981, Fr. Kiesle left the priesthood and the diocese of Oakland submitted papers to the Vatican requesting that Fr. Kiesle be defrocked, but the Vatican waited until 1987 to do so. During this time, he reportedly left the priesthood and moved to Pinole, California where he worked as a youth minister at St. Joseph’s from 1985 until 1988. In 2002, he was arrested and charged on 13 counts of child sexual abuse that took place while he worked at Santa Paula during the 1960s and 1970s. However, all but two of the charges were dropped due to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that changed the law surrounding the statutes of limitation. In 2004, he was accused of sexual abusing a 15-year-old girl and was sentenced to six years in prison. Fr. Kiesle was released on parole in 2009. After 7 months of being released, he violated his parole and had to go back to prison until 2010. Upon release, he became a registered sex offender and moved to Rossmoor, a senior community, in Walnut Creek, California. Fr. Kiesle has been named in numerous civil lawsuits. Fr. Kiesle’s current whereabouts and whether he has access to children are unknown.
A dreadful, evil man. But Dawkins has taken blatant liberties with this story to paint the Church in a bad light.
GENE
No he has not. Had Joseph Ratzinger done what he ought to have done and unfrocked this man, then he would have been registered as a sex offender and quite probably prevented the further fifteen offences of which he was found guilty. No amount of sniggering and jeering can gainsay that fact. And so far from taking liberties with Kiesle's story, Mr Dawkins referred only to the two initial offences for which the diocese of Oakland wished him unfrocked. He could have cited the other thirteen offences to show the dreadful consequences of Ratsinger's cowardice in shoving Kielse's behaviour under the carpet.
ReplyDeleteYour sniggering, jeering and refusal to face facts has shown me just what a disgusting human being you are, Gene. You are, like Ratzinger himself, a blasphemy of the mercy of Christ, and your bogus piety stinks to high heaven.
"Had Joseph Ratzinger done what he ought to have done and unfrocked this man, then he would have been registered as a sex offender and quite probably prevented the further fifteen offences of which he was found guilty"
ReplyDeleteCompletely untrue. This man's career as a priest ended in 1979. HE WAS NEVER AGAIN EMPLOYED AS A PRIEST BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. The Church dealt with him properly but the US State authorities did not. He left the priesthood in 1981 and was eventually officially defrocked by the Church in 1987.
His further offending was not down to the Church but was the result of the US State authorities giving him only a slap on the wrist in the form of probation for his vile offences in 1978
Why was this man not registered as a sex offender by the US State authorities in 1979? Do not blame the Church for this.
ReplyDeleteWhy was this man not registered as a sex offender by the US State authorities in 1979? Do not blame the Church for this failure.
ReplyDeleteWhy did Ratzinger not ensure that this man was registered as a sex offender as part of his pastoral oversight, just as Fr Richard ensured that his curate was dealt with appropriately by the law? And thereafter devised a solution which protected possible future children from being abused as well as protecting his curate from his own twisted sexuality.
ReplyDeleteThat is what a true man of God did and what Ratzinger should have done. Instead he excused, concealed and connived at Kiesle’s criminality for the sake of the reputation of his church. That stinks and you know it.
Why was this man not registered as a sex offender by the US State authorities in 1979? He was convicted of vile sex crimes. That's where the fault lies. Please answer this. It was not Ratzinger's responsibility to have him registered. It was the State's.
ReplyDeleteNo one is defending Ratzinger if he did what was alleged. And I'm not sure of this. Remember at this time over forty years ago many institutions (including the C of E) were behaving in this manner in respect of crimes of paedophilia.
But it is clear that the Catholic Church at the local level did the correct thing. The State did not.
So Detters why did the State of California not have this man registered as a sex offender? He would never have had access to children if California had done the correct thing.
But to get back to Dawkins his hypothesis is so ludicrous it makes him a laughing stock.
GENE