"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! You really do take the biscuit Detterling. Despite being plodding and unimaginative you at times come up with a gem like this and give us all such a laugh.
I can just imagine the raucous laughter from the lads in the Good Yarn tomorrow night!
GENE
Gene, you can go on reposting this lie as often as you want in order to try to burke the issue of your total failure to defend the disgraceful actions of Joseph Ratzinger in the case of Fr Kiesle.
ReplyDelete(1) I did not write the above.
(2) it was written by Richard Dawkins and he is making a perfectly reasonable and apt analogy for the total failure of Joseph Ratzinger adequately to deal with the case of Fr Kiesle, who tied up two altar boys and raped them.
(3) Petitioned by Kiesle’s Bishop to unfrock him, Ratzinger refused to do so, giving as his reasons the need to protect the church’s reputation (never mind the two buggered small boys) and the youth of Fr Kiesle (he was 38).
(4) It was Mr Dawkins’s opinion that, in a comparable civil case, Joseph Ratzinger would have been sued for aiding and abetting the crime of paedophilia.
(5) To reinforce his point he devised the scenario headlined by Gene above: a Secretary of Education refusing to withdraw qualified teacher status from the offender in the case of a teacher convicted of raping two pupils - on the grounds that avoiding damage to the reputation of the school was more important.
The fact that Gene thinks this to be a laughing matter gives us a uniquely repulsive insight into how his distorted and rancid mind works. The fact is, of course, that not having bothered to read Mr Dawkins’s article (or having read it and completely misunderstood it) he now realises that his early reaction - the attempt to ridicule and laugh off Mr Dawkins’s comparison- was completely inappropriate, and makes him look as if he thinks that buggering small boys is a laughing matter. But Gene’s bloated ego is such that he cannot admit this, hence this repeated posting of a nonsensical lie in an attempt to bluster his way out of an impossible - and disgusting position.
It won’t wash.
What next, I wonder? “Detters, let’s leave this behind and move on?” More facetious crap from Harris and Hoole? Or more superstitious piffle about bogus relics?
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
"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."
ReplyDeleteSo did Cardinal Ratzinger have no moral or pastoral obligation to ensure that this man was placed beyond reach of children? He was a priest, and hence Ratzinger's responsiblity.
"No one is defending Ratzinger if he did what was alleged. And I'm not sure of this."
Lying bastard: you are. And he did. And you should be sure, despite the tendentious crap you have just posted from an arse-kissing Catholic journalist.
"But it is clear that the Catholic Church at the local level did the correct thing."
No it didn't. Whatever internal action it took, it was the church's duty to do as much as it could to ensure that Kiesle was never allowed near children again. It should have co-operated with the state to ensure that this could not happen, just as Fr Richard with the his curate here. Stop drivelling and trying to pass the buck, it's making me feel queasy.
"But to get back to Dawkins his hypothesis is so ludicrous it makes him a laughing stock."
At last you agree that Ratzinger's actions were ludicrous - about bloody time.
Yes, Dawkins's hypothesis is ludicrous - AND IT IS LUDICROUS BECAUSE IT IS AN EXACT PARALLEL OF THE SITUATION IN WHICH RATZINGER FOUND HIMSELF.
From which it follows that Ratzinger's response - to conceal, excuse [after all the priest was only a young man!] and connive at further offences - was also ludicrous, as was the flannel, waffle and self-serving indecency of his written response, which, again, Dawkins has paralleled exactly.
Once again, Gene takes careful aim and shoots himself in the foot.