REPOSTED
Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope
By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Apr 10, 2010
We're off and running once again, with another completely phony story that purports to implicate Pope Benedict XVI in the protection of abusive priests.
The "exclusive" story released by AP yesterday, which has been dutifully passed along now by scores of major media outlets, would never have seen the light of day if normal journalistic standards had been in place. Careful editors should have asked a series of probing questions, and in every case the answer to those questions would have shown that the story had no "legs."
First to repeat the bare-bones version of the story: in November 1985, then-Cardinal Ratzinger signed a letter deferring a decision on the laicization of Father Stephen Kiesle, a California priest who had been accused of molesting boys.
Now the key questions:
• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.
So to review: This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican-- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. In short, if you're looking for evidence of a sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant.
We Americans know what a sex-abuse crisis looks like. The scandal erupts when evidence emerges that bishops have protected abusive priests, kept them active in parish assignments, covered up evidence of the charges against them, and lied to their people. There is no such evidence in this or any other case involving Pope Benedict XVI.
Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church. If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective.
The New York Times-- which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified:
…the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.
Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!
No, what is "fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal" is a media frenzy. There is a scandal here, indeed, but it's not the scandal you're reading about in the mass media. The scandal is the complete collapse of journalistic standards in the handling of this story.
PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT DETTERLING!
"Sick of hearing about scandals in the Church? You should be."
ReplyDeleteBy Phil Lawler Jul 24, 2019 - Source, Catholic Culture
When I first began reporting on the scandal, I assumed that it involved a few grossly immoral priests and a few negligent bishops. As I pried up one clue after another I discovered a pattern of corruption much broader and deeper than I could have imagined.
Was the abuse widespread? Yes.
Were many bishops complicit? Yes.
Was there an organized effort to protect the malefactors? Yes.
Did it extend to the Vatican? Yes.
Was the Pope involved? Yes.
Were Church leaders being blackmailed? Yes.
Were they sacrificing the interests of the Church to avoid detection and prosecution? Yes.
And gradually I realized that the sex-abuse scandal was not the only evidence of corruption: that there was widespread financial misconduct as well, with its own attendant cover-ups. All these revelations I explained and demonstrated in my books."
So up yours, Gene.
Not to mention Ratzinger's clear involvement in the dreadful case of Theodore McCarrick which his sycophants spent months trying to blame entirely on John Paul II. As follows:
DeletePOPE BENEDICT XVI (2005-2013)
Pope Benedict XVI finally took action against McCarrick in 2005, after the Vatican received documentation from the former Metuchen, N.J., seminarian who had written a detailed letter in 1994 to his then-bishop, the late Edward Hughes, about the abuse he endured by McCarrick. For the first time, the Vatican had a named victim making a detailed report of abuse, although the claims were dismissed by some as unreliable because the seminarian himself had gone onto abuse minors.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano — then a top official in the secretariat of state who would go onto expose the McCarrick cover-up — called for an “exemplary measure” against McCarrick. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then Benedict’s secretary of state, “shared Vigano’s concerns.”
But the report said Benedict ultimately decided against a canonical trial or sanction, in part because the Vatican’s in-house legal code didn’t provide ways to prosecute old cases of priests who slept with young men. “Instead the decision was made to appeal to McCarrick’s conscience and ecclesial spirit by indicating to him that he should maintain a lower profile and minimize travel for the good of the church,” the report said.
The Vatican’s ambassador to Washington relayed the verbal request to McCarrick in 2006, and after McCarrick flouted it, the Vatican official in charge of bishops put it in writing in 2008. But McCarrick continued flouting the restrictions.
Email correspondence provided by McCarrick’s former secretary shows he traveled widely during Benedict’s papacy after the restrictions were purportedly imposed, including to regular meetings at the Vatican, to Bosnia, Lebanon, Qatar, Ireland and throughout Asia — travel that continued under Francis, including to China."
Source: Associated Press, November 10th, 2020.
So Ratzinger's action against a man who had been one of the most notorious buggers in the Catholic hierarchy for ten years was essentially to tell him to wind his head in and not attract any publicity. This appalling man was not defrocked until 2019, when Bergoglio realised that he could no longer cover up McCarrick's actions when an altar boy charged McCarrick with having raped him in 1972.
How can you defend a shower of shite like that, Gene?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete"When I first began reporting on the scandal, I assumed that it involved a few grossly immoral priests and a few negligent bishops. As I pried up one clue after another I discovered a pattern of corruption much broader and deeper than I could have imagined."
DeleteThat's what makes Phil Lawler a sound and trustworthy journalist.
AND THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD ACCEPT HIS REPORTING OF THE KIESLE CASE.
GENE
GENE
No, Gene, reposting and repeating lies and half truths does not stop their being lies and half truths. For example, he claims that Kiesle had no access to children in the years after 1985.
ReplyDeleteThat is a lie. Kiesle volunteered as a Youth minister at St Joseph’s from 1985 -1988. FACT.
But most of all. His article is bogus because he deliberately omits any references to the terms of Ratzinger’s refusal to unfrock Kiesle. The self serving waffle about “the good of the church” and “not upsetting the faithful” reveals Ratzinger’s real motives - to hush the matter up.
Which is why the tone of Mr Lawler’s 2019 article is so sad and bitter. They are the words of a man who has realised that he has spent twenty years defending the indefensible.
Was the Vatican involved? YES
Was the Pope involved? YES,
Up yours, Gene.
FORMER POPE BENEDICT ADMITS MAKING FALSE CLAIM TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE INQUIRY
ReplyDelete[From The Guardian, January 24th, 2022]
Ex-pontiff blames editorial ‘oversight’ for previous statement he was absent from 1980 meeting over suspected paedophile priest.
The former pope Benedict XVI has admitted providing false information to a German inquiry into clerical sexual abuse.
Benedict, who resigned as the global leader of the Roman Catholic church in 2013, said on Monday that he had attended a meeting with local church officials in 1980 to discuss a suspected paedophile priest. He blamed a previous written statement to German investigators – in which he said he was absent from the meeting – on an editorial error.
His admission comes four days after a report on the investigation claimed that Benedict had failed to take action against four priests accused of child sexual abuse when he was archbishop of Munich, a position the then cardinal, Josef Ratzinger, held between 1977 and 1982, and that his denial of being at the meeting in question lacked credibility.
In a statement to the German Catholic news agency KNA that was republished by the Vatican News website, Georg Gänswein, Benedict’s personal secretary, said the former pontiff would like to apologise for his mistake, while stressing that it was not made “out of any bad faith” but was a consequence of “an oversight in the editorial processing of his statement”.
Gänswein added, however, that no decision had been made at the meeting about a pastoral reassignment of the priest in question and that further explanations would follow once Benedict, 94, had read the full report.
The law firm Westpfahl Spilker Wastl was commissioned by the archdiocese of Munich and Freising to investigate how child sexual abuse cases were handled between 1945 and 2019.
The meeting Benedict attended discussed Peter Hullermann, a now notorious paedophile priest who had been transferred to Munich from Essen, where he was accused of abusing an 11-year-old boy. At the meeting, during which Benedict was quoted in the minutes, it was decided that Hullermann would be admitted to the diocese despite his known history.
Hullermann went on to be reassigned and sexually abuse more children, before being convicted in 1986 of paedophilia and distributing pornography. He was given an 18-month suspended prison sentence. Hullermann was reassigned again in 1987 to Garching an der Alz, where for the next 20 years he worked regularly with children as curate and parish administrator.
Martin Pusch, a lawyer at Westpfahl Spilker Wastl, said during a press conference last week: “During [Ratzinger’s] time in office, there were abuse cases happening. In those cases those priests continued their work without sanctions. The church did not do anything.”
As pope, Benedict came under fire for failing to act against widespread child sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic church and has repeatedly denied his role in knowingly covering up abuse, although in 2010 he admitted that the church “did not act quickly or firmly enough to take the necessary action”.
How much longer can you going on defending this shower of shite, Gene? It seems that Ratzinger polished his technique of obfuscation, complaisance and concealment for several years before he let Keisle off the hook, as well as in dozens of case afterwards.
And what about that convincing reason he gave to cover up his lies in this case - it was “an oversight in the editorial processing of his statement”.
What absolute bullshit.
What's the matter, Gene? Have you run out of bullshit yourself perhaps?
"This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican-- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. In short, if you're looking for evidence of a sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant."
ReplyDeleteGot that Detterling?
GENE
No, Gene, that will not wash: it is a masterpiece of elision and double-talk - something any competent journalist would have had to resort to in order to justify the unjustifiable - Ratzinger's criminal incompetence.
Delete"This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred."
No, it was a case where a priest had asked to be laicised using a bogus reason [that he wished to get married], where his bishop wanted rid of a priest with a record of abusing children, and where Ratzinger refused for reasons that had nothing to do with the facts of the case. All that mattered was "the good of the church" and "the feelings of the faithful".
"This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care."
No, this is a lie. It was a case in which a priest was allowed to volunteer as a youth minister - an obvious ploy to gain access to vulnerable children - and in which Ratzinger's failure to unfrock him meant that his offer to do voluntary ministry was accepted.
"This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct."
No, this was a case in which Ratzinger's sole motivation in refusing to unfrock the priest was to avoid unfavourable publicity for the Catholic Church. The welfare of the children he had abused, the welfare of the priest himself, apparently meant nothing to him. And his refusal to unfrock the priest for ignobly selfish reasons allowed the priest to go on abusing children for a further three years.
"This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican-- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully."
And if they wanted to consider all cases carefully, WHY THE HELL DIDN'T THEY?
It would have taken Ratzinger one letter to the Bishop of Oakland to find out what sort of man he was dealing with, to find out his true reasons for wishing to be laicised, to ensure that he was removed from the priesthood and, as a matter of pastoral care, placed somewhere where he could have no further access to children.
Did he write such a letter? did he hell.
"In short, if you're looking for evidence of a sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant."
And of all the weaselly dishonesty in Mr Lawler's article, this is easily the nastiest example. The case of Father Keisle is not evidence of a sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church - such evidence is supererogatory. There was and is enough evidence - like the $6,000,000,000 paid out in compensation to American victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests against non-disclosure agreements no doubt "for the good of the church" - for Fr Keisle's case to be only a tiny part of the sex-abuse crisis.
It is, however, evidence of criminal incompetence on the part of Joseph Ratzinger, which enabled Stephen Keisle to go on buggering small boys and raping little girls at St Joseph's Church, Penole, for a further three years.
Up yours, Gene.
And why no smart-arse answer to this?
ReplyDeleteFORMER POPE BENEDICT ADMITS MAKING FALSE CLAIM TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE INQUIRY
[From The Guardian, January 24th, 2022]
Ex-pontiff blames editorial ‘oversight’ for previous statement he was absent from 1980 meeting over suspected paedophile priest.
The former pope Benedict XVI has admitted providing false information to a German inquiry into clerical sexual abuse.
Benedict, who resigned as the global leader of the Roman Catholic church in 2013, said on Monday that he had attended a meeting with local church officials in 1980 to discuss a suspected paedophile priest. He blamed a previous written statement to German investigators – in which he said he was absent from the meeting – on an editorial error.
His admission comes four days after a report on the investigation claimed that Benedict had failed to take action against four priests accused of child sexual abuse when he was archbishop of Munich, a position the then cardinal, Josef Ratzinger, held between 1977 and 1982, and that his denial of being at the meeting in question lacked credibility.
In a statement to the German Catholic news agency KNA that was republished by the Vatican News website, Georg Gänswein, Benedict’s personal secretary, said the former pontiff would like to apologise for his mistake, while stressing that it was not made “out of any bad faith” but was a consequence of “an oversight in the editorial processing of his statement”.
Gänswein added, however, that no decision had been made at the meeting about a pastoral reassignment of the priest in question and that further explanations would follow once Benedict, 94, had read the full report.
The law firm Westpfahl Spilker Wastl was commissioned by the archdiocese of Munich and Freising to investigate how child sexual abuse cases were handled between 1945 and 2019.
The meeting Benedict attended discussed Peter Hullermann, a now notorious paedophile priest who had been transferred to Munich from Essen, where he was accused of abusing an 11-year-old boy. At the meeting, during which Benedict was quoted in the minutes, it was decided that Hullermann would be admitted to the diocese despite his known history.
Hullermann went on to be reassigned and sexually abuse more children, before being convicted in 1986 of paedophilia and distributing pornography. He was given an 18-month suspended prison sentence. Hullermann was reassigned again in 1987 to Garching an der Alz, where for the next 20 years he worked regularly with children as curate and parish administrator.
Martin Pusch, a lawyer at Westpfahl Spilker Wastl, said during a press conference last week: “During [Ratzinger’s] time in office, there were abuse cases happening. In those cases those priests continued their work without sanctions. The church did not do anything.”
As pope, Benedict came under fire for failing to act against widespread child sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic church and has repeatedly denied his role in knowingly covering up abuse, although in 2010 he admitted that the church “did not act quickly or firmly enough to take the necessary action”.
How much longer can you going on defending this shower of shite, Gene? It seems that Ratzinger polished his technique of obfuscation, complaisance and concealment for several years before he let Keisle off the hook, as well as in dozens of case afterwards.
And what about that convincing reason he gave to cover up his lies in this case - it was “an oversight in the editorial processing of his statement”.
What absolute bullshit.
What's the matter, Gene? Have you run out of bullshit yourself perhaps?
And why, above all, no smart arse answer to this?
ReplyDelete"Sick of hearing about scandals in the Church? You should be."
By Phil Lawler Jul 24, 2019 - Source, Catholic Culture
When I first began reporting on the scandal, I assumed that it involved a few grossly immoral priests and a few negligent bishops. As I pried up one clue after another I discovered a pattern of corruption much broader and deeper than I could have imagined.
Was the abuse widespread? Yes.
Were many bishops complicit? Yes.
Was there an organized effort to protect the malefactors? Yes.
Did it extend to the Vatican? Yes.
Was the Pope involved? Yes.
Were Church leaders being blackmailed? Yes.
Were they sacrificing the interests of the Church to avoid detection and prosecution? Yes.
And gradually I realized that the sex-abuse scandal was not the only evidence of corruption: that there was widespread financial misconduct as well, with its own attendant cover-ups. All these revelations I explained and demonstrated in my books."
So up yours, Gene.
Yes, that was certainly true of the Catholic Church. But why are you so determined to hammer the Catholic Church amongst all the organisations and institutions which had a similarly dreadful record. What about, for example, the Church of England's appalling record of paedophilia and its cover up?
DeleteAnd what about the PIE and its ten year affiliation to the NCCL and its endorsement by the pinko/liberal extreme Left?
YOU ARE SUCH A HYPOCRITE DETTERLING.
GENE
And finally, we reach the dregs of debate - "whataboutery", the last resort of someone who has not only lost the argument hands down but knows that he has, and is too much of a slime-ball to admit it.
DeleteAlong, of course, with the usual lies, smears and distortions, as follows.
"But why are you so determined to hammer the Catholic Church amongst all the organisations and institutions which had a similarly dreadful record?"
No, Gene, that will not wash. I am not attacking the Catholic Church - I am adducing facts about the Catholic Church which speak for themselves. If these facts show up the Catholic Church in a bad light, then that is the church's problem, not my responsibility. FAIL.
"What about, for example, the Church of England's appalling record of paedophilia and its cover up?"
IN THIS CONTEXT, AND IN THIS CONTEXT ONLY, the record of the Church of England, appalling as it is, is an irrelevance. And, not that it matters, I have been active both at deanery and diocesan level in compiling reports for the diocesan chancellor on safeguarding issues, as well as writing several articles for local and national publication highlighting the C of E's dreadful behaviour over such as Bishop Peter Ball, in particular the way in which he was supported by George Carey in attempts to avoid prosecution. FAIL.
"And what about the PIE and its ten year affiliation to the NCCL and its endorsement by the pinko/liberal extreme Left?"
I was not and am not responsible for the affiliation of the PIE to the NCCL. And as I have demonstrated several times, the Left did not endores the Paedophile Information Exchange. I have refuted that lie and smear several times already, as follows:
"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." FAIL.
Which also neatly disproves your claim that I am out to hammer the Catholic Church as a whole: I have said several times that it is a wonderful organisation, even if it is disfigured by creatures like you and Joseph Ratzinger.
No, my purpose in this dispute has been to nail down the FACT that Joseph's Ratzinger's inaction in 1985 over Fr Stephen Keisle enabled the abuse of children at St Joseph's Church, Penole, to continue for a further three years. And try as you might, none of your lies, bluster, smears, elisions or citations of ridiculously biased journalism has done anything to disprove that. And you can't disprove it, because it is a FACT.
The thing is, Gene, that I know what a chiselling, weaselly bastard you are, and how cheap and nasty your debating tactics are. If I stop responding to your lies, smears and evasions you will immediately claim "victory" when in fact you have not won, but merely exasperated the opposition by your systematic obtuseness.
So this dispute will go on as long as you like, but I am not going to back down. And as for this
"YOU ARE SUCH A HYPOCRITE DETTERLING."
grow up, why don't you. A charge of hypocrisy would only stick were I to excuse paedophile Anglican priests whilst highlighting the paedophilia of Catholic ones, and I don't. So piss off. FAIL.
"I was not and am not responsible for the affiliation of the PIE to the NCCL. And as I have demonstrated several times, the Left did not endorse the Paedophile Information Exchange."
DeleteSo why was the PIE affiliated to the NCCL for ten years?
Did you personally ever, even once, over the years denounce the vile Paedophile Information Exchange?
GENE
I have no idea why the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL for ten years. I was a member neither of the PIE or the NCCL, so why would I concern my self with these matters?
Delete"Did you personally ever, even once, over the years denounce the vile Paedophile Information Exchange?"
What a fucking stupid question. You are suggesting that because I did not denounce the PIE that I supported it. And you claim to have a degree in PPE. Dear GOD.
I have told you before, Gene - do NOT post when you are pissed out of your head.
WHO WROTE THIS?
ReplyDelete"Sick of hearing about scandals in the Church? You should be.
By Phil Lawler Jul 24, 2019 - Source, Catholic Culture
When I first began reporting on the scandal, I assumed that it involved a few grossly immoral priests and a few negligent bishops. As I pried up one clue after another I discovered a pattern of corruption much broader and deeper than I could have imagined.
Was the abuse widespread? Yes.
Were many bishops complicit? Yes.
Was there an organized effort to protect the malefactors? Yes.
Did it extend to the Vatican? Yes.
Was the Pope involved? Yes.
Were Church leaders being blackmailed? Yes.
Were they sacrificing the interests of the Church to avoid detection and prosecution? Yes.
And gradually I realized that the sex-abuse scandal was not the only evidence of corruption: that there was widespread financial misconduct as well, with its own attendant cover-ups. All these revelations I explained and demonstrated in my books."
Was it that well known assailant of the Catholic Church Detterling? NO!
It was that well known, highly respected and devout Catholic journalist Philip Lawler, sad and bitter at his realisation that he has, with all the integrity at his command, spent thirty years defending the indefensible. And what was almost certainly one of the straws that, piling up inexorably over the years, that broke his back? This:
The FACT that had Ratzinger unfrocked Kiesle in 1985, the abuse of children at St Joseph's would not have continued for a further three years, a FACT that Mr Lawler failed include in his journalisn.
And who emerges from this process looking like a prize horse's arse?
Gene "Fetherlite" Vincent, the bogus hypocrite who condemns others for hypocrisy yet practised artificial birth control in contravention of the Holy Father Pope Paul's infallible pronouncement that artificial birth control is against God's law.
""Did you personally ever, even once, over the years denounce the vile Paedophile Information Exchange?"
ReplyDeleteWhat a fucking stupid question."
You are determined to denounce the Catholic Church and in particular Pope Benedict over paedophilia. Yet the greatest threat of paedophilia happening to our children in this country over the past fifty years has been the existence of the PIE.
Why did you never denounce it?
GENE
No, Gene, you are getting nowhere with this line - more lies and more smears will make no greater impression than all the previous ones.
ReplyDelete"You are determined to denounce the Catholic Church and in particular Pope Benedict over paedophilia.
No, Gene, my goal is not to denounce the Catholic Church nor to denounce Joseph Ratzinger.
It is to denounce arseholes like you who are unwilling to face facts, and who continue to refuse to face them when it is proved to them that they are wrong.
It is a fact that, as the well known, highly respected and devout Catholic journalist Philip Lawler came to realise, that the Catholic Church mounted a systematic campaign to cover up widespread paedophilia among the priesthood which reached as far up the hierarchical structure of the church as far as the Vatican and the popes - including Joseph Ratzinger - themselves. To state that fact is not to "denounce the church" - it is stating a fact.
If you stop denying that this is the case I will not need to repeat it.
Likewise it is a fact that 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 not to "denounce" Joseph Ratzinger; it is stating a fact about him. Stop denying it and I will not need to repeat it.
"Yet the greatest threat of paedophilia happening to our children in this country over the past fifty years has been the existence of the PIE."
Nonsense. Let alone the impossibility of your quantifying the size of the danger it presented to children fifty years ago, and comparing it to the influence of modern online pornography, the
PIE was outlawed and disbanded forty years ago. It never had more than 1,000 members and mustered only 307 altogether in 1984, the year it was disbanded. [source, Tim Tate at https://timtate.co.uk/].
"Why did you never denounce it?"
I repeat, this is a nonsensical question, and one which I have no need to answer, particularly when it is posed by a nasty little creep like you. You are clearly [and typically ineptly] attempting to imply that if I did not denounce the PIE then I must have supported it. Are you pissed AGAIN? That is an insult to even to your meagre intelligence.
Is this the best you have got, Gene? Repeated lies, repeated smears, stupid questions and pitiful attempts to elide the fact that you have been taken to the cleaners over Joseph Ratzinger.