DETTERLING and DAWKINS - a dastardly duo...
Readers may wonder why the unholy alliance of Detterling and Dawkins are so determined to bash the Catholic Church and in particular Pope Benedict over paedophilia.
Detterling, even though his bogus pedalling of accusations in respect of a case in California involving an awful man named Kiesle, have been blown out of the water continues to make tiresome allegations.
I hear you ask why? Well, now let me see. Detterling has always come across as an implacable enemy of the Catholic Church. And he has it in for Pope Benedict XVI with a vengence. Why? I can reveal that two principal reasons exist.
1 Although Pope Benedict was a very gentle soul he could be very forthright. He, for example, roundly condemned homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered, sinful and something that could not be accepted in the Christian faith. This did not go down well with Detterling and his Gay Lobby friends.
2 Pope Benedict dismissed the Anglican Church as 'having no legitimacy.
This did not go down well with Detterling and his C of E friends.
Dawkins of course hated Pope Benedict. Pope Benedict had been the cause of his greatest humiliation. Remember when the New Atheists wanted to have Pope Benedict arrested? Pope Benedict brushed Dawkins and the New Atheists aside. End of the New Atheists.
So why does this dastardly duo target the Catholic Church over paedophilia I hear you ask. There are so many other targets they could attack.
Yes, the greatest threat of paedophilia happening to our children in this country over the past fifty years has been, while they operated, the existence of the Paedophile Information Exchange.
Did Detterling ever, even once, over the years denounce the PIE? Of course not!
Did Dawkins ever, even once, over the years denounce the PIE? Of course not!
GENE
The definition of insanity, said Albert Einstein, is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. By this criterion, and several others, Gene "Fetherlite" Vincent is barking mad.
ReplyDeleteSeveral times, patiently, doggedly and all the time with cast iron evidence, I have refuted Gene's lies, smears, distortions, innuendos. I have several times asked him to ask simple closed questions which would expose his nasty, grubby and fraudulent attempts to libel me as a supporter of paedophilia. In short, he has been thoroughly defeated, time and time and again.
And his response?
He repeats his lies, smears, distortions and innuendos, and nasty, grubby and fraudulent attempts to libel me as a supporter of paedophilia - but in a different typeface, a different colour, and a bold font, as if doing so would conceal their complete ineffectuality - mad as a tin of smashed arseholes.
Let us count the ways.
"Readers may wonder why the unholy alliance of Detterling and Dawkins are so determined to bash the Catholic Church and in particular Pope Benedict over paedophilia."
Leaving aside the fact that no-one reads this crap, there is no alliance between Mr Dawkins and me. Nor am I determined to "bash the Catholic church". On the other hand I am happy to print facts about the Catholic Church and Joseph Ratzinger and let readers [if any] draw their own conclusions. Facts have no motives, Gene.
"Detterling, even though his bogus pedalling of accusations in respect of a case in California involving an awful man named Kiesle, have been blown out of the water continues to make tiresome allegations."
No, I simply repeat the inescapable facts: that Ratzinger refused to unfrock Stephen Keisle "for the good of the Catholic Church" and "to avoid distressing the Catholic faithful". And that as a result, Stephen Keisle was enabled to go on abusing children at St Joseph's Church, Penole, for three years. You have been completely unable to refute that fact.
"Detterling has always come across as an implacable enemy of the Catholic Church."
Nonsense. I am married to a Catholic, my son was confirmed and took his First Communion at the age of eight, I regularly accompany him to a Vigil Mass on Saturday evenings, and he accompanies me to Eucharist on Sunday mornings where he operates the livestream broadcast of the service. He attended a Catholic Primary School and attends a Catholic High School with my complete support and approval. To call me an implacable enemy of the Catholic Church is demented bollocks.
"[Joseph Ratzinger] for example, roundly condemned homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered, sinful and something that could not be accepted in the Christian faith."
And he was perfectly entitled to do so, just as I am perfectly entitled to think that he was talking nonsense. But Joseph Ratzinger, thank God, does not represent the Catholic Church as it exists at grass roots level and as I know it - decent, kind, tolerant and loving people with more to do than interfere in other people's business. The idea that a man with zero sexual experience is entitled to lay down the law about others' sexual habits is beyond preposterous. Preposterous also is the idea that this silly old man's vapourings make me hate the Catholic Church.
"Pope Benedict dismissed the Anglican Church as 'having no legitimacy."
Again - that a foolish old man talks nonsense makes me pity him rather than hate him and, once again, he does not represent the Catholic Church at grass roots level, to whom he was an embarrassment.
Nor do I give any credence to ethical and moral wafflings of a man with a proven track record of concealing and enabling paedophilia over a period of thirty years.
[continued}
Gene, the demented arsehole...[II]
ReplyDelete"Remember when the New Atheists wanted to have Pope Benedict arrested?"
This is a lie: the Murdoch press claimed that Dawkins had sought to take out an arrest warrant - a libellous lie which Dawkins forced them to withdraw by threatening them with legal action.
"Yes, the greatest threat of paedophilia happening to our children in this country over the past fifty years has been, while they operated, the existence of the Paedophile Information Exchange."
The PIE had, at its height, only 1000 members, and for much of its existence, fewer than half that. Their influence was negligible compared the global reach of online pornography via which most paedophiles can now access material.
"Did Detterling ever, even once, over the years denounce the PIE? Of course not!"
So what? what is that supposed to prove or even suggest? that because I never denounced them I supported them. Don't be so fucking obtuse.
On the grounds that you have never denounced drunken driving, shoplifting, squatters or people who shit on the pavements, then this must mean that you are in favour of getting pissed and driving your car through a bus queue, people rifling the shelves at Sainsbury's, people who simply break into empty houses and start living there and people who take a dump in the street. You utter, demented fuckwit.
Gene, I know what you are doing - you are trying to prolong this argument by saying the first thing that comes into your head, no matter how stupid it is, in the hope of exasperating me to the point where I get fed up and stop arguing - at which point, as you did so often on TES Opinion, you would claim "victory".
It isn't going to work.
"Did Detterling ever, even once, over the years denounce the PIE? Of course not!"
ReplyDeleteSo what? what is that supposed to prove or even suggest? that because I never denounced them I supported them. "
No one is saying that you supported the PIE. But it is strange that in respect of paedophilia you have as your target the Catholic Church when the PIE would much a more appropriate target. BOTH FOR YOU AND FOR DAWKINS
GENE
"No one is saying that you supported the PIE."
DeleteNo, Gene, that is a lie.
Until I shafted your attempts to do so, you tried your hardest to insinuate that I, as a member of that non-existent body "the pinko-liberal extreme left" had endorsed the Paedophile Information Exchange and hence endorsed the practice of paedophilia.
"But it is strange that in respect of paedophilia you have as your target the Catholic Church"
Why is it strange? There is extensive documentary evidence that the Catholic Church for many years concealed and therefore effectively endorsed the crimes of many paedophile priests. To point this out is not to "target" anyone: it is simply to point out facts. As I have said, facts have no agenda and no motive.
"when the PIE would much a more appropriate target. BOTH FOR YOU AND FOR DAWKINS".
No, Gene, you are wrong. The Catholic Church has 139,000,000,000 members and has existed for 2000 years. The Paedophile Information Exchange had at the most 1000 members and was in existence for 10 years.
Which is these organisations would influence public attitudes more and longer?
Dear God, Gene, you are clutching at straws.
"as a member of that non-existent body "the pinko-liberal extreme left" had endorsed"
ReplyDeleteThe pinko/liberal Left did and does exist. Its members did indeed support the PIE.
The PIE was indeed the most serious threat to children in the past fifty years in this country. This evil body promoted sex between children and adults and proposed that this should be made legal. It was affiliated for almost ten years to the NCCL the epitome of the Pinko/Liberal extreme Left.
No, Gene, remember what Einstein said - repeating the same actions and expecting different outcomes is one definition of insanity. You are acting insanely again.
ReplyDeleteThe “pinko-Liberal extreme left” does not and did not exist. Left wing opinion consists of a huge range of view points, from left of centre liberals to hard line Marxists, and these opinions agree on hardly anything. More than that, the only evidence for your ridiculous assertion is that several members of the Labour Party, fifty years ago, were simultaneously members of the NCCL when it allowed the PIE to be affiliated to it. To claim that this amounts to the entire left wing endorsing the PIE is insane (see Einstein above).
The PIE had only 1,000 members at its height, and was disbanded 40 years ago. To claim that it was the “most serious threat to children in the past fifty years” is blatantly ridiculous.
The two most serious threats to young people in this country in the last fifty years are (a) the growth of the internet and social media, particularly in the areas of child pornography and (b) the influence of bigoted clowns like you who preach intolerance and hatred and whose idea of debating is simply to bully people into exhaustion by shouting the same nonsensical, unevidenced crap louder and louder and louder, just as you are doing now.
"More than that, the only evidence for your ridiculous assertion is that several members of the Labour Party, fifty years ago, were simultaneously members of the NCCL when it allowed the PIE to be affiliated to it. To claim that this amounts to the entire left wing endorsing the PIE is insane (see Einstein above)."
ReplyDeleteDid I say the entire Left? I did not.
But the PIE did receive support from the Left including from Peter Tatchell, a Labour Party parliamentary candidate in 1983.
In the early 1980s the Socialist Workers Party held in Scotland a symposium which called for paedophilia to be legalised.
Put that in you pipe and smoke it Detterling.
GENE
polOh, Gene, do stop making a complete tit of yourself. You wrote:
Delete"The pinko/liberal Left did and does exist. Its members did indeed support the PIE."
That statement is based on two nonsensical assertions:
one, that there is a choate political body called "the pinko/liberal left";
two, that its members [not a few of them, some of them, most of them but all of them] support the PIE.
That amounts to an assertion that "the left" support the PIE and by extension, paedophilia.
It is true that some left wing politicians were simultaneously members of the Labour Party and the NCCL at a time when the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL, but it is wrong to assert that this amounts to their supporting the PIE.
It is true that Mr Tatchell, forty-one years ago, expressed support for the PIE, but he was not, as you well know, speaking for the Labour party or enunciating Labour party policy. In that matter, he spoke for himself only.
The Socialist Workers Party never had more than 5,000 members [compare the Labour Party membership of nearly half a million] and so cannot be held to speak for any but a tiny proportion - about 1% - the left wing. And of course you are dredging up all these attempted smears from forty years ago and more.
Gene, you are flogging a dead horse: in the past three weeks you have made hardly a single statement which you have been able to make stick, for the simple reason that, as usual, you are mistaking smears, lies, half truths, insinuations and unevidenced slogans for arguments.
I repeat: Gene, remember what Einstein said - repeating the same actions and expecting different outcomes is one definition of insanity. You are acting insanely again.
The “pinko-Liberal extreme left” does not and did not exist. Left wing opinion consists of a huge range of view points, from left of centre liberals to hard line Marxists, and these opinions agree on hardly anything. More than that, the only evidence for your ridiculous assertion is that several members of the Labour Party, fifty years ago, were simultaneously members of the NCCL when it allowed the PIE to be affiliated to it. To claim that this amounts to the entire left wing endorsing the PIE is insane (see Einstein above).
The PIE had only 1,000 members at its height, and was disbanded 40 years ago. To claim that it was the “most serious threat to children in the past fifty years” is blatantly ridiculous.
The two most serious threats to young people in this country in the last fifty years are
(a) the growth of the internet and social media, particularly in the areas of child pornography and
(b) the influence of bigoted clowns like you who preach intolerance and hatred and whose idea of debating is simply to bully people into exhaustion by shouting the same nonsensical, unevidenced crap louder and louder and louder, just as you are doing now.
And that is to ignore such moronically barmy assertions as
ReplyDelete"Detterling has always come across as an implacable enemy of the Catholic Church."
An implacable enemy of the Catholic Church does not get married to a Catholic, have his son confirmed and take his First Communion at the age of eight.
An implacable enemy of the Catholic Church does not regularly accompany his son to a Vigil Mass on Saturday evenings, nor does he cause him to accompany me to Eucharist on Sunday mornings where he operates the livestream broadcast of the service.
An implacable enemy of the Catholic Church does not send his son to a Catholic Primary School and then a Catholic High School with his complete support and approval.
To call me an implacable enemy of the Catholic Church is demented and viciously offensive bollocks. If you had any integrity at all you would withdraw that nasty insult and apologise for it.
But you haven't, so you won't: and even if you did you wouldn't mean it, because you are a vicious bigot.
And he has it in for Pope Benedict XVI with a vengence.
ReplyDelete"And he has it in for Pope Benedict XVI with a vengence."
No I don't. I don't take lectures about sexual morality from a man with his track record of concealing and enabling paedophilia, and I think his remarks about homosexuality are simply silly, as was his dismissal of the Church of England. To take stupidity of that sort seriously is to give it a dignity it cannot begin to deserve. So, faced with that kind of barmy inconsequence I do the kindest thing and simply ignore it.
On the other hand, I will not stop making the point that, in refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" [never mind the small boys buggered and the little girls raped, eh?], Joseph Ratzinger not only dismissed Stephen Keisle's vile crimes as less important than the greater good of the church, but also enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years.
Stating that FACT is not "having it in for Ratzinger with a vengeance". It is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
And you can go on screaming your lies, smears, insinuations and insults until you are blue in the face, I am not going to stop stating that fact until you acknowledge its truth.
Abuse inquiry: Labour ministers led group that backed Paedophile Information Exchange
ReplyDeleteThe Times
Patricia Hewitt was general secretary of the National Council for Civil Liberties between 1974 and 1983
The former Labour cabinet minister Patricia Hewitt must accept responsibility for the “foolish and misguided support” given to a paedophile campaign by a leading human rights group, the inquiry report said.
Ms Hewitt and her former ministerial colleague Harriet Harman were senior figures in the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) in the 1970s and 1980s. At the time it backed the work of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a group that campaigned to lower the age of consent.
The report said that the NCCL’s leaders “should have known better” and: “There was a fundamental failure to see the problem and a lack of moral courage to confront it.”
Recycling already exploded attempts at smears is more insanity, Gene. As I have said already:
Delete"It is true that some left wing politicians were simultaneously members of the Labour Party and the NCCL at a time when the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL, but it is wrong to assert that this amounts to their supporting the PIE."
The affiliation of the PIE to the NCCL does not amount to supporting its aims.
And in any case, this is bugger all to do with this established fact:
In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" [never mind the small boys buggered and the little girls raped, eh?], Joseph Ratzinger not only dismissed Stephen Keisle's vile crimes as less important than the greater good of the church, but also enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it.
And you can go on screaming your lies, smears, insinuations and insults until you are blue in the face, I am not going to stop stating that fact until you acknowledge its truth.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it Detterling.
ReplyDelete"The report said that the NCCL’s leaders “should have known better” and: “There was a fundamental failure to see the problem and a lack of moral courage to confront it.” "
ReplyDeleteTruly shocking!
Mary Winterbourne
Oh, Gene, tell me, are you actually fooling yourself by posting this sock puppetry. If you are then your insanity is reaching dangerous depths. Seek help at once.
Delete"The former Labour cabinet minister Patricia Hewitt must accept responsibility for the “foolish and misguided support” given to a paedophile campaign by a leading human rights group, the inquiry report said.
DeleteMs Hewitt and her former ministerial colleague Harriet Harman were senior figures in the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) in the 1970s and 1980s. At the time it backed the work of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a group that campaigned to lower the age of consent.
The report said that the NCCL’s leaders “should have known better” and: “There was a fundamental failure to see the problem and a lack of moral courage to confront it.” "
Yes indeed: THE MORAL COURAGE TO CONFRONT IT. Detterling come back with me to Oxford University in 1978. It was the year of my finals and around April/May of that year a speaker from the PIE was invited to speak at the university. I joined protests to have the invitation to this man representing such a vile organisation withdrawn. I'm pleased to say that those protesting came from, not just the Catholic chaplaincy, but a very broad section of the student population. The invitation to this speaker was withdrawn thank God.
GENE
Gene, do stop making such spectacle of yourself.
DeleteIn the first place, you claimed that you graduated in 1976, not 1978.
In the second place, the PIE was never invited to speak at Oxford University. It took me twenty minutes' research in the Oxford Mail archives to find that out.
And in the third place, your bogus claim to have demonstrated against the PIE - who DO you think you are kidding, Gene?
And finally, your pretence to have put your money where your vast slack drivelling gob for once has absolutely nothing to do with the following FACT, so why keep bellyaching on about it?
FACT: In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" [never mind the small boys buggered and the little girls raped, eh?], Joseph Ratzinger not only dismissed Stephen Keisle's vile crimes as less important than the greater good of the church, but also enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it.
And you can go on screaming your lies, smears, insinuations and insults until you are blue in the face, I am not going to stop stating that fact until you acknowledge its truth.
That you cannot see what a ridiculous spectacle this desperate flailing about to avoid the inevitable is a serious cause for concern.
I went to Oxford in 1975. I GRADUATED IN 1978. CHECK BACK ANYTHING I HAVE POSTED ABOUT THIS.
ReplyDeleteFrom The Observer 2 March 2014
The only way for PIE to survive was to seek out as much publicity for the organisation as possible … If we got bad publicity we would not run into a corner but stand and fight. We felt that the only way to get more paedophiles joining PIE … was to seek out and try to get all kinds of publications to print our organisation's name and address and to make paedophilia a real public issue."
This philosophy guided the organisation down the years with its subsequent chairman, Tom O'Carroll, gaining significant publicity for the group after being invited, and then barred, from addressing students at several universities, including Swansea, Liverpool and Oxford.
Wrong again Detterling!
Gene
BBC:
ReplyDeleteThe group's visits to universities were often opposed. In 1977 PIE's chairman Tom O'Carroll was ejected from a conference on "love and attraction" at University College, Swansea after lecturers "threatened not to deliver their papers if Mr O'Carroll stayed", the Times reported. The May 1978 issue of Magpie, PIE's in-house newspaper, records how O'Carroll had been invited to address students at Liverpool and Oxford University but that the visits were cancelled after local opposition.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378
ReplyDeleteSO STUFFED AGAIN DETTERLING!!!
ReplyDelete"From The Observer 2 March 2014/The May 1978 issue of Magpie, PIE's in-house newspaper..."
ReplyDeleteMANY MANY THANKS for doing all this legwork for me, Gene - I thought the story about PIE might be true - although your claim to have got off your fat arse and demonstrated against them is obvious nonsense - but I simply couldn't be arsed to find out, because it is a complete irrelevance to these FACTS:
FACT 1: In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" [never mind the small boys buggered and the little girls raped, eh?], Joseph Ratzinger not only dismissed Stephen Keisle's vile crimes as less important than the greater good of the church, but also enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
FACT 2: This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it.
And well done for admitting that your yarn about having demonstrated against the PIE was a lie. There was no need for any demonstrations, so you never went on one.
Keep banging on about the PIE for as long as you like, but you cannot refute the FACTS about the appalling Keisle and the equally appalling Ratzinger.
Christ, Gene, you really are insane: why else would you bang on about English paedophiles when the point at issue is American paedophilia enabled by a German Catholic. Fucking demented.
"And well done for admitting that your yarn about having demonstrated against the PIE was a lie. There was no need for any demonstrations, so you never went on one."
ReplyDeleteO'Carroll had been invited to address students at Liverpool and Oxford University but that the visits were cancelled after local opposition.
Stuffed again Detterling!
Gene I make a principle of never believing a word you say unless you can prove it. “Local opposition” proves nothing about your involvement, which you have obviously invented.
DeleteAnd in any case the PIE in England in 1978 has absolutely nothing to do with Ratzinger’s criminal negligence over Stephen Keisle in 1985. It’s because you have completely been routed over that matter that you are frantically trying to change the subject. It won’t work.,
"O'Carroll had been invited to address students at Liverpool and Oxford University but that the visits were cancelled after local opposition."
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think local opposition means?
Stuffed again Detterling!
Local opposition could mean anything from letters to the Oxford Mail to people smashing up the Radcliffe Camera. Either way I know you had nothing to do with it. Stop making stuff up.
DeleteAnd in any case the PIE in England in 1978 had nothing to do with Ratzinger’s criminal negligence over Stephen Kiesle in 1985. It’s because you have been completely routed over that matter that you are frantically trying to change the subject now. It won’t work.
MANY MANY THANKS for doing all this legwork for me, Gene - I thought the story about PIE might be true - although your claim to have got off your fat arse and demonstrated against them is obvious nonsense - but I simply couldn't be arsed to find out, because it is a complete irrelevance to these FACTS:
ReplyDeleteFACT 1: In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" [never mind the small boys buggered and the little girls raped, eh?], Joseph Ratzinger not only dismissed Stephen Keisle's vile crimes as less important than the greater good of the church, but also enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
FACT 2: This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it.
And well done for admitting that your yarn about having demonstrated against the PIE was a lie. There was no need for any demonstrations, so you never went on one.
Keep banging on about the PIE for as long as you like, but you cannot refute the FACTS about the appalling Keisle and the equally appalling Ratzinger.
Christ, Gene, you really are insane: why else would you bang on about English paedophiles when the point at issue is American paedophilia enabled by a German Catholic. Fucking demented.
"Gene I make a principle of never believing a word you say unless you can prove it. “Local opposition” proves nothing about your involvement, which you have obviously invented."
ReplyDeleteIn this case it meant student protest. And at the other universities I'm pretty sure as well. I remember it well as I took time out of preparing for my finals.
You don't wish to believe this as you never got of your fat ass to protest about the PIE - or no doubt did Dawkins either.
And the pinko/liberal Left condoning of the PIE has everything to do with the Kiesle case which involved a Catholic priest who was effectively removed from ministry from the date of his conviction for his crimes.
Compare this to the case of the PIE which advocated adults having sex with children and which was affiliated for almost ten years to the pinko/liberal extreme Left NCCL. Plus two future Labour Government ministers were involved up to their eyes. Plus a Labour Party parliamentary candidate, Peter Tatchell, advocating adult sex with children. You and your ilk condoned all this Detterling.
You will not be allowed to bluff, bluster and slither your way out of this one Detterling.
GENE
"You and your ilk condoned all this Detterling."
ReplyDeleteAttaboy! Gene. Don't let him off the hook.
Mary Winterbourne
Oh, Gene, you pathetic little man.
DeleteNo, Gene, you are simply repeating the invented piffle which has already been completely refuted. But, as you are simply not going to wear me down, I say again.
ReplyDelete"And the pinko/liberal Left condoning of the PIE has everything to do with the Kiesle case which involved a Catholic priest who was effectively removed from ministry from the date of his conviction for his crimes."
Utter nonsense: [1] "the pinko-liberal left" does not exist as a choate political entity with a unanimous opinion. A non existent body can neither condone nor condemn anything. [2] You have been completely unable to prove that any body of left wing opinion such as the Parliamentary or National Labour party condoned the PIE. It is true that several left wing figures were simultaneously members of the Labour Party and the National Council for Civil Liberties. This does not mean that they condoned the PIE.
[3] The British left-wing did not condone the PIE, but even if they had, this would have had nothing to do with the fact that an American priest's abuse of children, which could have been prevented had Ratzinger unfrocked him when he was asked to in 1985, was allowed by this criminal dereliction to continue for another three years. This happened irrespective of any left wing viewpoints in another country. To suggest that there is a connection is demented. [4] The NCCL membership comprised all shades of political opinion, and despite being challenged to several times, you have offered no evidence for the political allegiances of its members.
"Compare this to the case of the PIE which advocated adults having sex with children and which was affiliated for almost ten years to the pinko/liberal extreme Left NCCL. Plus two future Labour Government ministers were involved up to their eyes. Plus a Labour Party parliamentary candidate, Peter Tatchell, advocating adult sex with children."
Simply repeating this pack of lies is yet another proof that you are barking mad. And as for this ridiculous allegation: "You and your ilk condoned all this Detterling", that is the kind of offensively moronic and cowardly filth to which you would not dare to sign your name, and I will not dignify it with a response.
"You will not be allowed to bluff, bluster and slither your way out of this one Detterling."
I have neither bluffed, blustered or slithered in this matter. I have acknowledged what is true - that the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL what time three Labour politicians were also members of the NCCL, that Mr Tatchell also supported the PIE what time he was a Labour candidate - although in supporting the PIE he was speaking on his own behalf, not the Labour Party's. I have pointed out the falsities, fallacies, lies and smears involved in your nonsensical attempt to prove that a non-existent body of left wing opinion condoned or condones the PIE, as well as pointing out why you are doing it - your complete failure to defend Ratzinger.
FACT 1: In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" Ratzinger enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
FACT 2: This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it.
As a young man marries a virgin. Saucy!
ReplyDeleteGood to see, Gene, that you have finally realised the futility of trying to pin the blame for a Californian Catholic priest's buggering of small boys and raping of little girls on the non-existent British "Pinko-liberal/extreme left".
ReplyDeleteIt didn't hurt, did it? after all, years of repeated humiliations must has thickened your skin to the point of being impermeable.
Every cause you have opposed - adoption by same-sex couples, same sex marriage and soon, assisted dying - has been accepted championed and then legalised by UK law. Not to mention trying to smear me as a supporter of paedophiles and paedophilia to try to distract attention from the fact that you have completely and utterly failed to defend the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger in the case of Stephen Keisle. Thus:
FACT 1: In refusing to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985, citing "the good of the Catholic Church" and the necessity of avoiding "distress to the Catholic faithful" Ratzinger enabled him to go on abusing children for a further three years. This is simply stating a fact, and if it shows that Ratzinger behaved with a callous disregard for the welfare of Catholic children to avoid a public scandal, then that is his problem, not my responsibility.
FACT 2: This has fuck all to do with the left wing of political opinion in the UK, fuck all to do with the NCCL and the PIE, and everything to do with your desperation to conceal the criminal negligence of Joseph Ratzinger, who had the opportunity to prevent children being sexually abused but criminally failed to take it.
All we need now is for you to acknowledge these facts and we can move on to my systematic demolition of whatever bigoted shite you come out with next.
Had you a shred of decency and a scintilla of integrity, you would apologise for your disgraceful accusations that I supported the Paedophile Information Exchange and hence paedophilia and paedophiles.
But you haven't, so you won't.
Not that an apology from a two-faced, lying cry-bully weasel like you - indeed an apology from an apology for a man - would be worth the arsehole you scraped it off.
I wonder what diseased notion is now forming in Gene “Fetherlite” Vincent’s demented brain? That Judas Iscariot was Detterling with a tea towel on his head, and that’s why Fr Stephen Keisle went on buggering small boys and raping little girls for three years longer than he should have done - nothing to do with Joseph Ratzinger’s criminal negligence in refusing to unfrock him “for the greater good of the Church” and to “avoid distress to the faithful”.
ReplyDeleteWhatever notion it is , it will be shot down in flames in short order, although Gene will persist in his insanity, whereby he thinks that if you tell a lie frequently and emphatically enough it becomes the truth. What a disgrace to St John’s College’s PPE degree he is.
Detterling writes:
ReplyDeleteI was visited by the spirit of Joseph Ratzinger last evening, and he had this to say:
"Mein lieber Herr Detterling, ich möchte mich so aufrichtig wie möglich für das entsetzliche Verhalten von Herrn Gene „Fetherlite“ Vincent entschuldigen, der Sie kürzlich auf seinem schrecklichen Blog „Gene, eine Stimme in der Wildnis“ so böse verunglimpft hat. Ich möchte Ihnen zwei Dinge versichern.
Erstens haben Sie völlig Recht, wenn Sie sagen [und behaupten], dass ich mich im Umgang mit den schrecklichen Sexualverbrechen, die neben vielen anderen von Pater Keisle begangen wurden, eines kriminell fahrlässigen Verhaltens schuldig gemacht habe. Da das, was ich damals für die höchsten Motive hielt, das, was ich als das größere Wohl der Kirche und die Gefühle der katholischen Gläubigen ansah, über die emotionalen, physischen und spirituellen Bedürfnisse vieler Kinder, Jugendlicher und schutzbedürftiger Erwachsener stellte Ich habe viele Jahre lang unaussprechlichen sexuellen Missbrauch durch eine Priesterschaft erlitten, für deren Verhalten ich verantwortlich war. Meine Schuldgefühle darüber, die ich im Laufe der Jahre nicht mehr unterdrücken konnte, führten dazu, dass ich 2013 aus dem Papstamt austrat. Die neun Jahre meines Ruhestands verbrachte ich damit, in Selbstdemütigung und Buße zu versuchen, dafür zu büßen Ich werde weiterhin und wiederholt scheitern, und nur auf Kosten eines langen Aufenthalts im Fegefeuer werde ich mit der Zeit von der schrecklichen Fremdartigkeit der Barmherzigkeit Gottes profitieren und mich unserem Herrn in der Herrlichkeit anschließen.
Zweitens ist Herr Vincent ein bigotter, doktrinärer und heuchlerischer Pharisäer, der der katholischen Kirche peinlich ist. Mein Gebet ist, dass Sie es irgendwann in Ihrem Herzen finden, ihm seine Bosheit, seine Bösartigkeit und seine unverzeihliche Gemeinheit Ihnen gegenüber zu verzeihen, vor allem seine schändliche Behauptung, Sie würden Pädophile und Pädophilie unterstützen. Ich werde in meiner anhaltenden Schande über das abscheuliche Verhalten dieses Mannes bestärkt, wenn ich sehe, wie geduldig, logisch und forensisch Sie mit seinen lächerlich schlecht argumentierten und unehrlichen Versuchen umgegangen sind, mein unhaltbares Verhalten zu verteidigen. Wenn Sie meine eigenen Empfindlichkeiten in dieser Angelegenheit berücksichtigen möchten, sollten Sie Ihre Sprache mäßigen, die von Zeit zu Zeit skatologisch, rau und grob ist, wenn Sie auf die hässlicheren und verrückteren Beiträge von Herrn Vincent antworten. Obwohl ich es unangenehm finde, kann ich verstehen, warum Ihre Verärgerung über seine Stumpfheit Sie zu einer übertriebenen Ausdrucksweise verleitet. Dennoch würde Ihre Herabwürdigung von Herrn Vincent an Gewicht gewinnen, wenn sie eleganter formuliert würde.
Dennoch kann ich mich nur noch einmal für das unerträgliche Verhalten von Herrn Vincent entschuldigen und Ihnen zu Ihrer klaren Analyse einer schändlichen Episode in der Geschichte der Kirche gratulieren, die leider nicht ganz der Vergangenheit angehört. Pax vobis cum, Herr Detterling."