If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Cardinals defend pope on church sex abuse scandal, Mets say they are just butthurt   ( news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Good Friday, Pope Benedict XVI, physical abuse, Mets, Roman Catholic, Last Supper, archdiocese, sexual assaults  
•       •       •

1093 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2010 at 11:34 AM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



201 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2010-04-02 11:36:57 AM  
How come none of the kids that were abused ever come back to get revenge on the priests and the church? bunch of pussies.
 
2010-04-02 11:37:13 AM  
Come 'ere me boy an' lemme give ye a Yankee.
 
2010-04-02 11:37:39 AM  
Let's just get this out of the way...

i75.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2010-04-02 11:38:24 AM  

StarshipPooper: How come none of the kids that were abused ever come back to get revenge on the priests and the church? bunch of pussies.


Sacrifice bunt?

Squeeze play?

Double header?
 
2010-04-02 11:38:25 AM  
Fark the Pope.

There, I said it.

/Hitchens said it first
//or maybe that Luther dude
 
2010-04-02 11:38:31 AM  
Well maybe if the priests were allowed B(o)(o)BIES they wouldn't have this problem quite as much.

/No good reason to force celibacy upon their priests.
 
2010-04-02 11:38:57 AM  
I predict this will be a calm and rational thread, devoid of atheists and theists bashing each other endlessly.
 
2010-04-02 11:39:39 AM  
I suppose we are doomed to eternally endure lousy baseball jokes everytime the Catholic church leadership makes the news?
 
2010-04-02 11:40:20 AM  

T-Servo: Fark the Pope.

There, I said it.

/Hitchens said it first
//or maybe that Luther dude



No no, you're thinking of Sinead O'Connor.
 
2010-04-02 11:40:39 AM  
In Bizarro World, religion is just for adults. Drinking, smoking dope, and guns are for kids.
 
2010-04-02 11:40:39 AM  

redundantman: I suppose we are doomed to eternally endure lousy baseball jokes everytime the Catholic church leadership makes the news?


I hope so.
 
2010-04-02 11:44:35 AM  

EdNortonsTwin: Well maybe if the priests were allowed B(o)(o)BIES they wouldn't have this problem quite as much.


I don't agree. No access to women doesn't turn you into a child diddler. It might turn you gay (see: prison). And it might account for priests say, banging other priests. It might account for illicit affairs with prostitutes. It doesn't turn you on to children.
 
2010-04-02 11:44:44 AM  
+1 on the headline


/Pretty sure I'm going to hell anyway
 
Pud
2010-04-02 11:45:03 AM  

TsukasaK: I predict this will be a calm and rational thread, devoid of atheists and theists bashing spanking each other endlessly.

 
2010-04-02 11:45:44 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: redundantman: I suppose we are doomed to eternally endure lousy baseball jokes everytime the Catholic church leadership makes the news?

I hope so.


So how about that local sports team?
tshirtmonger.comView Full Size
 
2010-04-02 11:45:50 AM  
1 Ratzinger needs to resign.
2 Any cardinal or bishop involved need to resign.
3 Any figure believed guilty by the Church needs to be dealt with by the secular authorities.
4 All accusations against the clergy need to be reported to the proper secular authorities.
5 Clerical celibacy needs to be kicked into the dustbin.

Then, the Church can put this in the past.
 
2010-04-02 11:45:51 AM  
... and the Asstros will be bringing up the rear.
 
2010-04-02 11:46:29 AM  

EdNortonsTwin: Well maybe if the priests were allowed B(o)(o)BIES they wouldn't have this problem quite as much.


Little boys don't have boobies.
 
2010-04-02 11:47:27 AM  

yakmans_dad: Ratzinger needs to resign.


But this is the point. How can you resign when you're infallible?
 
2010-04-02 11:47:51 AM  

yakmans_dad: 1 Ratzinger needs to resign.
2 Any cardinal or bishop involved need to resign.
3 Any figure believed guilty by the Church needs to be dealt with by the secular authorities.
4 All accusations against the clergy need to be reported to the proper secular authorities.
5 Clerical celibacy needs to be kicked into the dustbin.

Then, the Church can put this in the past.


1 won't happen
2 won't happen
3 won't happen
4 won't happen
5 won't happen
 
2010-04-02 11:49:24 AM  
The Pope's off the hook until someone finds the smoking communion wafer.
 
2010-04-02 11:49:30 AM  

T-Servo: yakmans_dad: Ratzinger needs to resign.

But this is the point. How can you resign when you're infallible?


Infallibility inheres in the office.
 
2010-04-02 11:50:15 AM  

yakmans_dad: 1 Ratzinger needs to resign.
2 Any cardinal or bishop involved need to resign.
3 Any figure believed guilty by the Church needs to be dealt with by the secular authorities.
4 All accusations against the clergy need to be reported to the proper secular authorities.
5 Clerical celibacy needs to be kicked into the dustbin.

Then, the Church can put this in the past.


Are you trolling or just an idiot? Catholic?fark the Church, there's been enough "putting (in)behind(s)".
 
2010-04-02 11:51:22 AM  
Well of COURSE they are defending him. They are the pool of likely next popes and there is probably not a single one of them without at least a peripheral connection to a cover up.
 
2010-04-02 11:51:57 AM  
The problem as I see it is that the church needs to ask forgiveness from the flock, and work to make things right. They are far too concerned with protecting their perceived moral superiority to realize they have already lost it.

Then again, I gave up on them long ago. They are so focused on the letter of the law(being the literal translation of the Bible), they have completely lost sight of what Jesus was trying to say.
 
2010-04-02 11:51:57 AM  
motifake.comView Full Size


So this is putting a bummer on the whole Easter thing? Have a chocolate bunny, and bend over.
 
2010-04-02 11:52:02 AM  
Oh no, not again...

/petunias
 
2010-04-02 11:52:12 AM  

RedfordRenegade: EdNortonsTwin: Well maybe if the priests were allowed B(o)(o)BIES they wouldn't have this problem quite as much.


Little boys don't have boobies.


Ya gotta take where you can get it. I'm just guessing but the number of alter boys is significantly higher than alter girls.

/just a theory, I could be wrong
 
2010-04-02 11:55:25 AM  
Fark the Pope, hard and with his own dick.
 
2010-04-02 11:55:55 AM  

Kimpak: RedfordRenegade: EdNortonsTwin: Well maybe if the priests were allowed B(o)(o)BIES they wouldn't have this problem quite as much.


Little boys don't have boobies.

Ya gotta take where you can get it. I'm just guessing but the number of alter boys is significantly higher than alter girls.

/just a theory, I could be wrong



The fat alter boys have boobies.
 
2010-04-02 11:57:39 AM  
THIS IS THE TIME TO SCOURGE THIS HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE THING. The church isn't about buggering kids: this is a terrible corruption that has been allowed to fester. It should have been corrected ages ago, but now is the perfect time.
 
2010-04-02 11:57:51 AM  
The pope should be hung.
bidmead.co.ukView Full Size
 
2010-04-02 11:58:46 AM  

iollow: EdNortonsTwin: Well maybe if the priests were allowed B(o)(o)BIES they wouldn't have this problem quite as much.

I don't agree. No access to women doesn't turn you into a child diddler. It might turn you gay (see: prison). And it might account for priests say, banging other priests. It might account for illicit affairs with prostitutes. It doesn't turn you on to children.


"...they wouldn't have this problem quite as much."

A priest who has tendancies towards viewing children as sexual objects who has a wife and family at home is probably somewhat less likely to follow through on a sexual act towards a child.

I discussed the issue with a PHd. He stated out of that men who may have pedo fantasies 1:1000 may act upon it.

See where I'm going here? It's not a purely prevantative measure, but it sure as hell would cut down on sexual sin if priests were actually allowed to have intimate relationships.

I'm not saying it would prevent it all together, but there are likely a number of measures that can be taken to help prevent abuse. Realistic expectations is one of them.
 
2010-04-02 11:59:15 AM  

T-Servo: Fark the Pope.

There, I said it.

/Hitchens said it first
//or maybe that Luther dude



Well, I liked to spray paint it on things.
obit-mag.comView Full Size

/hot
 
2010-04-02 12:00:09 PM  
Sin_City_Superhero 2010-04-02 11:57:51 AM
The pope should be hung hanged.


FTFM
 
2010-04-02 12:05:37 PM  
It's nice how they claim to be some kind of moral authority.
 
2010-04-02 12:05:52 PM  

TsukasaK: I predict this will be a calm and rational thread, devoid of atheists and theists bashing each other endlessly.


Just wait till Nick "The Moran" Steel shows up in the thread.
 
2010-04-02 12:06:25 PM  

fireclown: THIS IS THE TIME TO SCOURGE THIS HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE THING. The church isn't about buggering kids: this is a terrible corruption that has been allowed to fester. It should have been corrected ages ago, but now is the perfect time.


This. Pedo-rape is but one of the many symptoms of the overall disease. We've just chosen to be extra upset about it. It's actually not even as bad as the evil they have spread throughout Africa telling people not to use condoms and thereby making the AIDS problem so much worse and leading to innumerable deaths.
 
2010-04-02 12:07:21 PM  
METS are bottom dwelling cellar rats and pond scum. 2 World Series is not a legacy!!! Go CARDS!!! Muck the Fets...
 
2010-04-02 12:08:32 PM  

Kimpak: RedfordRenegade: EdNortonsTwin: Well maybe if the priests were allowed B(o)(o)BIES they wouldn't have this problem quite as much.


Little boys don't have boobies.

Ya gotta take where you can get it. I'm just guessing but the number of alter boys is significantly higher than alter girls.

/just a theory, I could be wrong


You know, I went to Catholic school from preschool through high school, and I can't think of a single female altar assistant. Granted, HS was all-male, but grade school was co-ed.
 
2010-04-02 12:12:55 PM  

Sword and Shield: Kimpak: RedfordRenegade: EdNortonsTwin: Well maybe if the priests were allowed B(o)(o)BIES they wouldn't have this problem quite as much.


Little boys don't have boobies.

Ya gotta take where you can get it. I'm just guessing but the number of alter boys is significantly higher than alter girls.

/just a theory, I could be wrong

You know, I went to Catholic school from preschool through high school, and I can't think of a single female altar assistant. Granted, HS was all-male, but grade school was co-ed.


the Church is about 200 years behind issues dealing with women. I know of two churches that are allowing the girls to be altar assistants.
 
2010-04-02 12:16:55 PM  
You know, I went to Catholic school from preschool through high school, and I can't think of a single female altar assistant. Granted, HS was all-male, but grade school was co-ed.

That's because 'girls' were not allowed to serve. I am not sure what year this changed. Because well you know much like every other religion on the face of the planet, the catholic church treats woman like crap, because you know you aren't qualified to serve the lord if you don't have a penis.

//Wonder when the world is going to start apologizing to Sinead O'Connor? I myself don't have to apologize, I never thought she was wrong.
 
2010-04-02 12:21:33 PM  

fireclown: THIS IS THE TIME TO SCOURGE THIS HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE THING. The church isn't about buggering kids: this is a terrible corruption that has been allowed to fester. It should have been corrected ages ago, but now is the perfect time.


"Corrected" how? I assume you're talking about some kind of forcible disestablishment of the Church? How would you keep that from degenerating into mere religious persecution?

Everyone should be upset about the way the RCs have behaved over this -- even tho' the Pope himself is not as guilty as sensationalizing media make him appear. But let's be honest: sexual abuse is at least as common in other institutions where adults have access to children, such as the public schools (as we see in the Fark headlines every week when another teacher gets busted for having sex with a student) -- but no- one is clamouring to get rid of the public schools.

The real problem is that our society has enshrined the pursuit of the next f*ck as one of its highest goods, so it's no surprise if individual sexual self- restraint has collapsed on a wide scale as a result. But it's easier for us to blame one particular institution than take a good look at the bigger picture.
 
2010-04-02 12:22:35 PM  

weatherwitch666: You know, I went to Catholic school from preschool through high school, and I can't think of a single female altar assistant. Granted, HS was all-male, but grade school was co-ed.

That's because 'girls' were not allowed to serve. I am not sure what year this changed. Because well you know much like every other religion on the face of the planet, the catholic church treats woman like crap, because you know you aren't qualified to serve the lord if you don't have a penis.

//Wonder when the world is going to start apologizing to Sinead O'Connor? I myself don't have to apologize, I never thought she was wrong.


The outrage over O'Conner was a lot of "oh, of course it's ok to pick on Catholics" nonsense. She is from a Catholic society. We who oppose religion have first an obligation to oppose the ones in our own part of the world. Sure, there are worse religions than Christianity. One particularly awful one comes to mind. But it's not the predominant one where I live.

Also, there was this mistaken sense that somehow the previous pope in particular was above criticism. Is there even the slightest chance he didn't know about the kid rape going on? Of course not. Not to mention the many other evils he sat there and smiled beatifically about.
 
2010-04-02 12:25:56 PM  

alltandubh: fireclown: THIS IS THE TIME TO SCOURGE THIS HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE THING. The church isn't about buggering kids: this is a terrible corruption that has been allowed to fester. It should have been corrected ages ago, but now is the perfect time.

"Corrected" how? I assume you're talking about some kind of forcible disestablishment of the Church? How would you keep that from degenerating into mere religious persecution?

Everyone should be upset about the way the RCs have behaved over this -- even tho' the Pope himself is not as guilty as sensationalizing media make him appear. But let's be honest: sexual abuse is at least as common in other institutions where adults have access to children, such as the public schools (as we see in the Fark headlines every week when another teacher gets busted for having sex with a student) -- but no- one is clamouring to get rid of the public schools.

The real problem is that our society has enshrined the pursuit of the next f*ck as one of its highest goods, so it's no surprise if individual sexual self- restraint has collapsed on a wide scale as a result. But it's easier for us to blame one particular institution than take a good look at the bigger picture.


1. Start with removing all tax exemptions.
2. Then enforce what should already be illegal. The pope is a foreign sovereign. Neither he nor his heirarchy should have ANY influence here in the US, official or otherwise. To declare an allegiance to a foreign sovereign is already grounds for loss of one's US citizenship. Somehow this one is given a pass.
 
2010-04-02 12:27:19 PM  

alltandubh: even tho' the Pope himself is not as guilty as sensationalizing media make him appear.


Is the pope guilty of abusing boys, no. Did he know of priest that were abusing boys and either ignored the issue or simply moved the abuser to another parish. Absolutely and with out question. And keep in mind he was the head of the arm of the church that dealt with abusers. It was his job to stop the abuse, and in more than one case he did nothing to stop the abuse.
 
2010-04-02 12:31:10 PM  

gshepnyc: It's actually not even as bad as the evil they have spread throughout Africa telling people not to use condoms and thereby making the AIDS problem so much worse and leading to innumerable deaths.


I've never understood this idea. If I tell you not to strap on the rubber johnnie, you can either listen or not listen, just as you please. The Church's authority only holds sway with those who believe in church doctrine, and if those people are too morally squeamish to put on a condom it's not likely they'll be engaged in the activities that exacerbate AIDS either, such as adultery, pre- marital sex or homosexuality. Why observe the little rules when you're just going to go ahead and break the really big ones?
 
2010-04-02 12:36:06 PM  

gshepnyc: 1. Start with removing all tax exemptions.


Agreed -- but this has to apply to every church.

2. Then enforce what should already be illegal. The pope is a foreign sovereign. Neither he nor his heirarchy should have ANY influence here in the US, official or otherwise. To declare an allegiance to a foreign sovereign is already grounds for loss of one's US citizenship. Somehow this one is given a pass.

I can't say I understand this... I know many Catholics and none of them have ever sworn allegiance to the Pope. I think that's an idea that began with the Know-Nothings and the KKK. It's true that the more serious ones would put their religion first, but that would go for most orthodox religious people.
 
2010-04-02 12:36:50 PM  
No Pujols jokes yet? Too easy?
 
2010-04-02 12:38:14 PM  

alltandubh: gshepnyc: It's actually not even as bad as the evil they have spread throughout Africa telling people not to use condoms and thereby making the AIDS problem so much worse and leading to innumerable deaths.

I've never understood this idea. If I tell you not to strap on the rubber johnnie, you can either listen or not listen, just as you please. The Church's authority only holds sway with those who believe in church doctrine, and if those people are too morally squeamish to put on a condom it's not likely they'll be engaged in the activities that exacerbate AIDS either, such as adultery, pre- marital sex or homosexuality. Why observe the little rules when you're just going to go ahead and break the really big ones?


A. A lot of these men (predominantly heterosex in this case, by the way) are assholes who don't hold women in terribly high esteem anyway, at least the way we think of it in western cultures, and the church is just allowing them to do what they want anyway - lose the rubber.

B. There was a widespread folk-belief that sex with a virgin girl could cure AIDS (provided it was sans-condom). The church tangentially reinforced that by allowing the means even though they didn't support the hypothesis.

C. We are not talking about the US or Sweden or Japan where people have adopted a modern mindset. This is a lot of poor people for whom there is little else in life BUT the promise of heaven. They tend to be more obedient to the church.
 
2010-04-02 12:42:00 PM  

alltandubh: gshepnyc: 1. Start with removing all tax exemptions.

Agreed -- but this has to apply to every church.

2. Then enforce what should already be illegal. The pope is a foreign sovereign. Neither he nor his heirarchy should have ANY influence here in the US, official or otherwise. To declare an allegiance to a foreign sovereign is already grounds for loss of one's US citizenship. Somehow this one is given a pass.

I can't say I understand this... I know many Catholics and none of them have ever sworn allegiance to the Pope. I think that's an idea that began with the Know-Nothings and the KKK. It's true that the more serious ones would put their religion first, but that would go for most orthodox religious people.


Well it's a light touch. Any time the church puts its heirarchy and resources into anything political, they are doing something that shouldn't be allowed. Individual churches at the parish level are one thing, but they are acting on instructions from a bishop who in turn obeys a monsignor who in turn obeys a cardinal who in turn obeys the pope then how is that different than letting the premier of China have a say in American politics?
 
2010-04-02 12:45:53 PM  

NightOwl2255: Is the pope guilty of abusing boys, no. Did he know of priest that were abusing boys and either ignored the issue or simply moved the abuser to another parish. Absolutely and with out question. And keep in mind he was the head of the arm of the church that dealt with abusers. It was his job to stop the abuse, and in more than one case he did nothing to stop the abuse.


My understanding is that there were two separate cases. The first, when he was Archbishop of Munich, involved his removing of an abusing priest from his parish and sending him to therapy. The abuser was later reinstated, but without Ratzinger's knowledge. The second case concerned his failure to respond to the letter about the priest in Wisconsin. This was because the case had already been dropped by the civil authorities in the US.

Naturally, if there's more to this, or if the above facts are wrong, I'm willing to be corrected.
 
2010-04-02 12:46:38 PM  

gshepnyc: B. There was a widespread folk-belief that sex with a virgin girl could cure AIDS (provided it was sans-condom). The church tangentially reinforced that by allowing the means even though they didn't support the hypothesis.


I agree that the church shares a lot of responsibility for the spread of AIDS by discouraging condoms, but that is a ridiculous jump to say they in any way shape or form reinforce the belief that sex with a virgin cures anything.
 
2010-04-02 12:59:33 PM  

alltandubh: NightOwl2255: Is the pope guilty of abusing boys, no. Did he know of priest that were abusing boys and either ignored the issue or simply moved the abuser to another parish. Absolutely and with out question. And keep in mind he was the head of the arm of the church that dealt with abusers. It was his job to stop the abuse, and in more than one case he did nothing to stop the abuse.

My understanding is that there were two separate cases. The first, when he was Archbishop of Munich, involved his removing of an abusing priest from his parish and sending him to therapy. The abuser was later reinstated, but without Ratzinger's knowledge. The second case concerned his failure to respond to the letter about the priest in Wisconsin. This was because the case had already been dropped by the civil authorities in the US.

Naturally, if there's more to this, or if the above facts are wrong, I'm willing to be corrected.


In the fist case, Fr. Hullermann was sent to a psychiatrist who told the church that he should never again be allowed to be around children. Fr. Hullermann was then given his own parish. No one believes that Ratzinger did not know about it. Ratzinger was famous for being a micro manager.

In the second case, Fr. Murphy admitted he had abused 200 deaf boys. The archbishop, when it came to his attention, wrote Ratzinger and asked what they should do as Fr. Murphy was still a active priest. Ratzinger never responded. The fact that the case was not being investigate as a criminal matter has nothing to do with the church knowingly allowing an abuser to remain a priest.
 
2010-04-02 01:03:01 PM  
I'm sick and tired of hearing from all these so called 'victims' of child molestation by the church. They go on and on about how bad it was for them and how their lives have been ruined. What a bunch of crap.

Is that all they can do is think about themselves? Is that what the Church teaches us? Is that what Jesus did? If people spent more time thinking about how to help others and less about themselves then we wouldn't have all these problems.
 
2010-04-02 01:03:44 PM  

NightOwl2255: alltandubh: even tho' the Pope himself is not as guilty as sensationalizing media make him appear.

Is the pope guilty of abusing boys, no. Did he know of priest that were abusing boys and either ignored the issue or simply moved the abuser to another parish. Absolutely and with out question. And keep in mind he was the head of the arm of the church that dealt with abusers. It was his job to stop the abuse, and in more than one case he did nothing to stop the abuse.


I realize that you like to play fast and easy with the truth and that facts aren't needed for you but please provide some answers.

You state that it is absolutely true and without question that the Pope ignored the issue or moved an offending priest to another parish. What facts do you have to back this up??

What are the circumstances involved in the cases that he did nothing to stop? Are you referring to the case in Wisconsin?
 
2010-04-02 01:04:02 PM  
Quoting from the letter from the friend, who wasn't identified by Cantalamessa, the preacher said that he was following "with indignation the violent and concentric attacks against the church, the pope and all the faithful of the whole world."

"The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism," Cantalamessa said his friend wrote him.


You know it's a sign of the End Times when the Vatican starts sounding like furries.
 
2010-04-02 01:08:54 PM  

liam76: gshepnyc: B. There was a widespread folk-belief that sex with a virgin girl could cure AIDS (provided it was sans-condom). The church tangentially reinforced that by allowing the means even though they didn't support the hypothesis.

I agree that the church shares a lot of responsibility for the spread of AIDS by discouraging condoms, but that is a ridiculous jump to say they in any way shape or form reinforce the belief that sex with a virgin cures anything.


I said they did so tangentially. means and motive come separately but work hand in hand. If I tell you that sex with a virgin cures AIDS, your own good sense or the contrary advice of others might outweigh that. But if another major authority in your life also tells you to lose the condoms there develops a kind of conspiracy of bad ideas that have separate sources and goals but act together to cause the same bad thing.

Also, remember that you or I can hit the corner drug store for condoms. In a less secular, less commercial culture you may be relying on rarer stores for the condoms or even on charities who might be pushed aside by the 800 pound gorilla of the catholic church.
 
2010-04-02 01:13:04 PM  

NightOwl2255: alltandubh: NightOwl2255: Is the pope guilty of abusing boys, no. Did he know of priest that were abusing boys and either ignored the issue or simply moved the abuser to another parish. Absolutely and with out question. And keep in mind he was the head of the arm of the church that dealt with abusers. It was his job to stop the abuse, and in more than one case he did nothing to stop the abuse.

My understanding is that there were two separate cases. The first, when he was Archbishop of Munich, involved his removing of an abusing priest from his parish and sending him to therapy. The abuser was later reinstated, but without Ratzinger's knowledge. The second case concerned his failure to respond to the letter about the priest in Wisconsin. This was because the case had already been dropped by the civil authorities in the US.

Naturally, if there's more to this, or if the above facts are wrong, I'm willing to be corrected.

In the fist case, Fr. Hullermann was sent to a psychiatrist who told the church that he should never again be allowed to be around children. Fr. Hullermann was then given his own parish. No one believes that Ratzinger did not know about it. Ratzinger was famous for being a micro manager.

In the second case, Fr. Murphy admitted he had abused 200 deaf boys. The archbishop, when it came to his attention, wrote Ratzinger and asked what they should do as Fr. Murphy was still a active priest. Ratzinger never responded. The fact that the case was not being investigate as a criminal matter has nothing to do with the church knowingly allowing an abuser to remain a priest.


that is some fine proof there, scooter.

Father Murphy???

In 1974, Milwaukee Archbishop William Cousins, Fr. de Souza reports, granted Father Murphy "an official 'temporary sick leave' from St. John's School for the Deaf," but he did not pursue canonical penalties against the priest. Father Murphy moved to the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, and lived with his mother. "He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998," nor have any allegations of abuse in those last 24 years of his life emerged.

So where does Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, come in? In 1996, years after both the civil and canonical statutes of limitations on sexual abuse had run out, Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland (one of Laurie Goodstein's two sources for her article) "writes to Cardinal Ratzinger, claiming that he has only just discovered that Father Murphy's sexual abuse involved the sacrament of confession" (in Father de Souza's words). Father Murphy was alleged to have granted some of his victims absolution for sexual sins in which he had taken part-such a serious violation of the sacrament and of the duties of the priesthood that there is no statute of limitations on the offense.

Archbishop Weakland, who had known about the Father Murphy case for over 20 years, had authority over it from 1977 on, and declined to do anything about it until 1996, began a canonical trial against Father Murphy that fall. On March 24, 1997, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger's right-hand man at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to Archbishop Weakland, agreeing with the need for a canonical trial.

The trial continued for over a year and a half, even though, in May 1998, Archbishop Bertone, in a meeting with Archbishop Weakland in Rome, discussed other options "that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry," since Father Murphy was close to death. Archbishop Weakland declined to pursue such options until August 19, 1998, two days before Father Murphy died-at which point it was too late.

Because Father Murphy had not been defrocked, his family had him buried in his priestly vestments in a public funeral (despite Archbishop Weakland's request that the funeral be private).
 
2010-04-02 01:15:13 PM  

nicksteel: NightOwl2255: alltandubh: even tho' the Pope himself is not as guilty as sensationalizing media make him appear.

Is the pope guilty of abusing boys, no. Did he know of priest that were abusing boys and either ignored the issue or simply moved the abuser to another parish. Absolutely and with out question. And keep in mind he was the head of the arm of the church that dealt with abusers. It was his job to stop the abuse, and in more than one case he did nothing to stop the abuse.

I realize that you like to play fast and easy with the truth and that facts aren't needed for you but please provide some answers.

You state that it is absolutely true and without question that the Pope ignored the issue or moved an offending priest to another parish. What facts do you have to back this up??

What are the circumstances involved in the cases that he did nothing to stop? Are you referring to the case in Wisconsin?


Nicky, Nicky, Nicky. Don't you ever tire of your BS games?

Here (new window)are documents that the church had to turn over in a court case. They clearly show that the archbishop wrote to Ratzinger about an abuser priest and never received a reply. At the time Ratzinger was the heard of the Doctrine of the Faith. It was his job to deal with abusive priest.


Now, are you still holding onto the belief that the pope or a bishop can't fire a priest?
 
2010-04-02 01:20:28 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: NightOwl2255: alltandubh: even tho' the Pope himself is not as guilty as sensationalizing media make him appear.

Is the pope guilty of abusing boys, no. Did he know of priest that were abusing boys and either ignored the issue or simply moved the abuser to another parish. Absolutely and with out question. And keep in mind he was the head of the arm of the church that dealt with abusers. It was his job to stop the abuse, and in more than one case he did nothing to stop the abuse.

I realize that you like to play fast and easy with the truth and that facts aren't needed for you but please provide some answers.

You state that it is absolutely true and without question that the Pope ignored the issue or moved an offending priest to another parish. What facts do you have to back this up??

What are the circumstances involved in the cases that he did nothing to stop? Are you referring to the case in Wisconsin?

Nicky, Nicky, Nicky. Don't you ever tire of your BS games?

Here (new window)are documents that the church had to turn over in a court case. They clearly show that the archbishop wrote to Ratzinger about an abuser priest and never received a reply. At the time Ratzinger was the heard of the Doctrine of the Faith. It was his job to deal with abusive priest.


Now, are you still holding onto the belief that the pope or a bishop can't fire a priest?i>

Anyone who makes that assertion about the Catholic church is lying. My cousin is a catholic priest (the decent not diddly kind). While priests are rarely fired (more often they are retired to some priests-only retirement home) it can and does happen that they are defrocked and relieved of their duties and paycheck by or via their bishop.

 
2010-04-02 01:26:47 PM  

nicksteel: Father Murphy???


Is there a question as to him being Father Murphy? He was never defrocked.

nicksteel: "He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998," nor have any allegations of abuse in those last 24 years of his life emerged.


He was still an active priest. He was not being monitored. He was actively trying to be allowed to work with deaf boys again.

nicksteel: On March 24, 1997, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger's right-hand man at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to Archbishop Weakland, agreeing with the need for a canonical trial.


Weakland had written Ratzinger in July of 1996 and was ignored. It was only after waiting 8 months and writing a second time that the secret canon trial was approved. Ratzinger ignored the first request.
 
2010-04-02 01:28:37 PM  

Clash City Farker: I'm sick and tired of hearing from all these so called 'victims' of child molestation by the church. They go on and on about how bad it was for them and how their lives have been ruined. What a bunch of crap.

Is that all they can do is think about themselves? Is that what the Church teaches us? Is that what Jesus did? If people spent more time thinking about how to help others and less about themselves then we wouldn't have all these problems.


Damn straight! They should just suck it up and move on.
Embarrassing the church is inexcusable; the little bastards were asking for it.
 
2010-04-02 01:33:04 PM  

gshepnyc: Anyone who makes that assertion about the Catholic church is lying.


This is from a thread yesterday:
nicksteel [TotalFark] Quote 2010-04-01 09:42:28 PM

Priests are not fired. They can be transfered to a different parish or they can be retired. But they are always priests until the day they die. They can, in rare instances, be excommunicated but that is not the same as fired.

Nicky will not give up the claim that a priest can not be fired. He's an idiot.
 
2010-04-02 01:40:45 PM  

AbbeySomeone: Clash City Farker: I'm sick and tired of hearing from all these so called 'victims' of child molestation by the church. They go on and on about how bad it was for them and how their lives have been ruined. What a bunch of crap.

Is that all they can do is think about themselves? Is that what the Church teaches us? Is that what Jesus did? If people spent more time thinking about how to help others and less about themselves then we wouldn't have all these problems.

Damn straight! They should just suck it up and move on.
Embarrassing the church is inexcusable; the little bastards were asking for it.


Ha ha. 'Suck it up'. Very funny.

Which brings me to my next point. The victims are all in denial about who's fault this is even after they complain to authorities and are told its their own fault.

Of course its their own fault. The pedofiles aren't stupid, they aren't going to molest someone unless they think they can get away with it. They will naturally pick on the weaker alter boys, the ones with 'faults'.

It's natural selection at work.
 
2010-04-02 01:41:30 PM  

NightOwl2255: gshepnyc: Anyone who makes that assertion about the Catholic church is lying.

This is from a thread yesterday:
nicksteel [TotalFark] Quote 2010-04-01 09:42:28 PM

Priests are not fired. They can be transfered to a different parish or they can be retired. But they are always priests until the day they die. They can, in rare instances, be excommunicated but that is not the same as fired.

Nicky will not give up the claim that a priest can not be fired. He's an idiot.


What he is saying there is true but not the whole truth. A priest can be relieved entirely of his priesthood meaning he is no longer bound by his vows, no longer allowed to perform priestly duties/sacraments, no longer allowed to wear the collar, no longer allowed to live at his old rectory and no longer employed. That is what you or I would call being fired and it goes further than what he is claiming.

He may or may not receive an income or stipend of any sort. Whether that is severance pay, retirement, or hush money may depend on your perspective.
 
2010-04-02 01:44:18 PM  
Been posted a number of times in previous threads (maybe this one), but I think this sums up nicksteel's and all the other pedo-defender's argument:

corporate-aliens.comView Full Size


Rufus: I'm telling you, man, this ceremony is a big mistake.
Cardinal Glick: The Catholic Church does not make mistakes.
Rufus: Please. What about the Church's silent consent to the slave trade?
Bethany: And its platform of noninvolvement during the Holocaust?
Cardinal Glick: All right, mistakes were made.
 
Pud
2010-04-02 02:09:49 PM  
i-mockery.comView Full Size


Is getting a kick out of these posts from down below
 
2010-04-02 02:31:52 PM  

NightOwl2255: alltandubh: NightOwl2255: Is the pope guilty of abusing boys, no. Did he know of priest that were abusing boys and either ignored the issue or simply moved the abuser to another parish. Absolutely and with out question. And keep in mind he was the head of the arm of the church that dealt with abusers. It was his job to stop the abuse, and in more than one case he did nothing to stop the abuse.

My understanding is that there were two separate cases. The first, when he was Archbishop of Munich, involved his removing of an abusing priest from his parish and sending him to therapy. The abuser was later reinstated, but without Ratzinger's knowledge. The second case concerned his failure to respond to the letter about the priest in Wisconsin. This was because the case had already been dropped by the civil authorities in the US.

Naturally, if there's more to this, or if the above facts are wrong, I'm willing to be corrected.

In the fist case, Fr. Hullermann was sent to a psychiatrist who told the church that he should never again be allowed to be around children. Fr. Hullermann was then given his own parish. No one believes that Ratzinger did not know about it. Ratzinger was famous for being a micro manager.

In the second case, Fr. Murphy admitted he had abused 200 deaf boys. The archbishop, when it came to his attention, wrote Ratzinger and asked what they should do as Fr. Murphy was still a active priest. Ratzinger never responded. The fact that the case was not being investigate as a criminal matter has nothing to do with the church knowingly allowing an abuser to remain a priest.


Actually, the archbishop wanted to punish Fr. Murphy with an internal tribunal followed by stripping him from the priesthood and wrote to Ratzinger for permission. At the same time, Fr. Murphy made a plea for leniency to Ratzinger. Ratzinger shut down the tribunal, allowing Fr. Murphy to die a priest.
 
2010-04-02 02:38:04 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: NightOwl2255: alltandubh: even tho' the Pope himself is not as guilty as sensationalizing media make him appear.

Is the pope guilty of abusing boys, no. Did he know of priest that were abusing boys and either ignored the issue or simply moved the abuser to another parish. Absolutely and with out question. And keep in mind he was the head of the arm of the church that dealt with abusers. It was his job to stop the abuse, and in more than one case he did nothing to stop the abuse.

I realize that you like to play fast and easy with the truth and that facts aren't needed for you but please provide some answers.

You state that it is absolutely true and without question that the Pope ignored the issue or moved an offending priest to another parish. What facts do you have to back this up??

What are the circumstances involved in the cases that he did nothing to stop? Are you referring to the case in Wisconsin?

Nicky, Nicky, Nicky. Don't you ever tire of your BS games?

Here (new window)are documents that the church had to turn over in a court case. They clearly show that the archbishop wrote to Ratzinger about an abuser priest and never received a reply. At the time Ratzinger was the heard of the Doctrine of the Faith. It was his job to deal with abusive priest.


Now, are you still holding onto the belief that the pope or a bishop can't fire a priest?



Archbishop Weakland, who had known about the Father Murphy case for over 20 years, had authority over it from 1977 on, and declined to do anything about it until 1996, began a canonical trial against Father Murphy that fall. On March 24, 1997, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger's right-hand man at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to Archbishop Weakland, agreeing with the need for a canonical trial.

The trial continued for over a year and a half, even though, in May 1998, Archbishop Bertone, in a meeting with Archbishop Weakland in Rome, discussed other options "that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry," since Father Murphy was close to death. Archbishop Weakland declined to pursue such options until August 19, 1998, two days before Father Murphy died-at which point it was too late.
 
2010-04-02 02:38:58 PM  

greentea1985: NightOwl2255: alltandubh: NightOwl2255: Is the pope guilty of abusing boys, no. Did he know of priest that were abusing boys and either ignored the issue or simply moved the abuser to another parish. Absolutely and with out question. And keep in mind he was the head of the arm of the church that dealt with abusers. It was his job to stop the abuse, and in more than one case he did nothing to stop the abuse.

My understanding is that there were two separate cases. The first, when he was Archbishop of Munich, involved his removing of an abusing priest from his parish and sending him to therapy. The abuser was later reinstated, but without Ratzinger's knowledge. The second case concerned his failure to respond to the letter about the priest in Wisconsin. This was because the case had already been dropped by the civil authorities in the US.

Naturally, if there's more to this, or if the above facts are wrong, I'm willing to be corrected.

In the fist case, Fr. Hullermann was sent to a psychiatrist who told the church that he should never again be allowed to be around children. Fr. Hullermann was then given his own parish. No one believes that Ratzinger did not know about it. Ratzinger was famous for being a micro manager.

In the second case, Fr. Murphy admitted he had abused 200 deaf boys. The archbishop, when it came to his attention, wrote Ratzinger and asked what they should do as Fr. Murphy was still a active priest. Ratzinger never responded. The fact that the case was not being investigate as a criminal matter has nothing to do with the church knowingly allowing an abuser to remain a priest.

Actually, the archbishop wanted to punish Fr. Murphy with an internal tribunal followed by stripping him from the priesthood and wrote to Ratzinger for permission. At the same time, Fr. Murphy made a plea for leniency to Ratzinger. Ratzinger shut down the tribunal, allowing Fr. Murphy to die a priest.


The trial continued for over a year and a half, even though, in May 1998, Archbishop Bertone, in a meeting with Archbishop Weakland in Rome, discussed other options "that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry," since Father Murphy was close to death. Archbishop Weakland declined to pursue such options until August 19, 1998, two days before Father Murphy died-at which point it was too late.
 
2010-04-02 02:41:37 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: Father Murphy???

Is there a question as to him being Father Murphy? He was never defrocked.

nicksteel: "He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998," nor have any allegations of abuse in those last 24 years of his life emerged.

He was still an active priest. He was not being monitored. He was actively trying to be allowed to work with deaf boys again.

nicksteel: On March 24, 1997, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger's right-hand man at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to Archbishop Weakland, agreeing with the need for a canonical trial.

Weakland had written Ratzinger in July of 1996 and was ignored. It was only after waiting 8 months and writing a second time that the secret canon trial was approved. Ratzinger ignored the first request.


In 1974, Milwaukee Archbishop William Cousins, Fr. de Souza reports, granted Father Murphy "an official 'temporary sick leave' from St. John's School for the Deaf," but he did not pursue canonical penalties against the priest. Father Murphy moved to the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, and lived with his mother. "He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998," nor have any allegations of abuse in those last 24 years of his life emerged.

So where does Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, come in? In 1996, years after both the civil and canonical statutes of limitations on sexual abuse had run out, Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland (one of Laurie Goodstein's two sources for her article) "writes to Cardinal Ratzinger, claiming that he has only just discovered that Father Murphy's sexual abuse involved the sacrament of confession" (in Father de Souza's words). Father Murphy was alleged to have granted some of his victims absolution for sexual sins in which he had taken part-such a serious violation of the sacrament and of the duties of the priesthood that there is no statute of limitations on the offense.

Archbishop Weakland, who had known about the Father Murphy case for over 20 years, had authority over it from 1977 on, and declined to do anything about it until 1996, began a canonical trial against Father Murphy that fall. On March 24, 1997, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger's right-hand man at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to Archbishop Weakland, agreeing with the need for a canonical trial.

The trial continued for over a year and a half, even though, in May 1998, Archbishop Bertone, in a meeting with Archbishop Weakland in Rome, discussed other options "that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry," since Father Murphy was close to death. Archbishop Weakland declined to pursue such options until August 19, 1998, two days before Father Murphy died-at which point it was too late.

Because Father Murphy had not been defrocked, his family had him buried in his priestly vestments in a public funeral (despite Archbishop Weakland's request that the funeral be private).
 
2010-04-02 02:44:19 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: Father Murphy???

Is there a question as to him being Father Murphy? He was never defrocked.

nicksteel: "He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998," nor have any allegations of abuse in those last 24 years of his life emerged.

He was still an active priest. He was not being monitored. He was actively trying to be allowed to work with deaf boys again.


In 1974, Milwaukee Archbishop William Cousins, Fr. de Souza reports, granted Father Murphy "an official 'temporary sick leave' from St. John's School for the Deaf," but he did not pursue canonical penalties against the priest. Father Murphy moved to the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, and lived with his mother. "He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998," nor have any allegations of abuse in those last 24 years of his life emerged.
 
2010-04-02 02:47:29 PM  
How do the Padres feel about this?
 
2010-04-02 03:01:42 PM  

greentea1985: Actually, the archbishop wanted to punish Fr. Murphy with an internal tribunal followed by stripping him from the priesthood and wrote to Ratzinger for permission. At the same time, Fr. Murphy made a plea for leniency to Ratzinger. Ratzinger shut down the tribunal, allowing Fr. Murphy to die a priest.


No, it was not at the same time. Weakland wrote to Ratzinger in July of 1996. Murphy did not write to Ratzinger until Jan. of 1998. Ratzinger ignored Archbishop Weakland's request for a canon trial. It wasn't until Weakland wrote a second letter 8 months after the first that Weakland got a response, and it was not from Ratzinger.
 
2010-04-02 03:08:09 PM  

Ponzholio: How do the Padres feel about this?


The padres are no Angels.
 
2010-04-02 03:26:30 PM  

alltandubh: "Corrected" how? I assume you're talking about some kind of forcible disestablishment of the Church? How would you keep that from degenerating into mere religious persecution?


No. I do mean jail time, however.
 
2010-04-02 03:29:09 PM  

NightOwl2255: greentea1985: Actually, the archbishop wanted to punish Fr. Murphy with an internal tribunal followed by stripping him from the priesthood and wrote to Ratzinger for permission. At the same time, Fr. Murphy made a plea for leniency to Ratzinger. Ratzinger shut down the tribunal, allowing Fr. Murphy to die a priest.

No, it was not at the same time. Weakland wrote to Ratzinger in July of 1996. Murphy did not write to Ratzinger until Jan. of 1998. Ratzinger ignored Archbishop Weakland's request for a canon trial. It wasn't until Weakland wrote a second letter 8 months after the first that Weakland got a response, and it was not from Ratzinger.


Archbishop Weakland, who had known about the Father Murphy case for over 20 years, had authority over it from 1977 on, and declined to do anything about it until 1996, began a canonical trial against Father Murphy that fall. On March 24, 1997, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger's right-hand man at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to Archbishop Weakland, agreeing with the need for a canonical trial.
 
2010-04-02 03:40:49 PM  
I don't feel like reading all these and maybe this has been said already, but...

Priests regularly got married up until the middle ages, when the Vatican suddenly realized they were getting screwed -- see, the priests typically owned the land their church was on. When they died, their wives got control of the land and the church. But we mustn't have that! Better to have them raping kids than passing on their property to their widows.

And just to get this out of the way...

/Stop using this stupid slash after every god damn point you make, farkin' Farkers

/I'm farking serious
 
2010-04-02 03:43:51 PM  

nicksteel: Archbishop Weakland, who had known about the Father Murphy case for over 20 years, had authority over it from 1977 on, and declined to do anything about it until 1996, began a canonical trial against Father Murphy that fall. On March 24, 1997, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger's right-hand man at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to Archbishop Weakland, agreeing with the need for a canonical trial.


So, you agree what I wrote was correct? First thing you've gotten right in days.
 
2010-04-02 03:56:15 PM  
This always plays out the same way.

The Cardinals pay a bunch of money and then they go right back to their Pujols.
 
2010-04-02 03:56:49 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: Archbishop Weakland, who had known about the Father Murphy case for over 20 years, had authority over it from 1977 on, and declined to do anything about it until 1996, began a canonical trial against Father Murphy that fall. On March 24, 1997, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger's right-hand man at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to Archbishop Weakland, agreeing with the need for a canonical trial.

So, you agree what I wrote was correct? First thing you've gotten right in days.


You wanted to make it look as if Ratzinger had ignored the situation, when in fact his right hand man sent off a letter. That is called delegating power. You, of all people, should understand that Ratzinger knew of this letter. You are the one who stated that he was a micro manager. You cannot have it both ways, either he was a micro manager or he wasn't.
 
2010-04-02 04:54:05 PM  

nicksteel: You wanted to make it look as if Ratzinger had ignored the situation, when in fact his right hand man sent off a letter. That is called delegating power. You, of all people, should understand that Ratzinger knew of this letter. You are the one who stated that he was a micro manager. You cannot have it both ways, either he was a micro manager or he wasn't.


He ignored it for 8 months, and it was not until Wakeland sent a second letter, not to Ratzinger this time, that he received a response. If Wakeland would not have sent a second letter Ratzinger would have just continued to ignore the situation, which the church has become so good at doing.
 
2010-04-02 05:10:34 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: You wanted to make it look as if Ratzinger had ignored the situation, when in fact his right hand man sent off a letter. That is called delegating power. You, of all people, should understand that Ratzinger knew of this letter. You are the one who stated that he was a micro manager. You cannot have it both ways, either he was a micro manager or he wasn't.

He ignored it for 8 months, and it was not until Wakeland sent a second letter, not to Ratzinger this time, that he received a response. If Wakeland would not have sent a second letter Ratzinger would have just continued to ignore the situation, which the church has become so good at doing.


let's recap. Your initial position.

1. Nobody responded to the letter.
2. Okay somebody responded, but it was not Ratzinger.
3. Okay the guy who responded worked directly for Ratzinger
4. The letter was ignored for 8 months. (This is the first time that you have said anything about a second letter.)


I think that it is time for you to provide a citation that supports your claim. Feel free to change it again if that makes it easier.

BTW, do you know what Father Murphy was put on trial by the Bishop?
 
2010-04-02 05:34:45 PM  

iollow: I don't agree. No access to women doesn't turn you into a child diddler. It might turn you gay (see: prison). And it might account for priests say, banging other priests. It might account for illicit affairs with prostitutes. It doesn't turn you on to children.


The Catholic policies don't turn anyone into a molester. What they do, however, is create an ideal environment where kiddy-fiddlers can hide and ply their trade.
 
2010-04-02 05:35:56 PM  

nicksteel: You wanted to make it look as if Ratzinger had ignored the situation, when in fact his right hand man sent off a letter. That is called delegating power.


I don't believe I've seen you address my question from the earlier thread, regarding what would happen to the CEO of Wal-Mart if his actions were similar to those of the Pontiff's.
 
2010-04-02 05:39:18 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: iollow: I don't agree. No access to women doesn't turn you into a child diddler. It might turn you gay (see: prison). And it might account for priests say, banging other priests. It might account for illicit affairs with prostitutes. It doesn't turn you on to children.

The Catholic policies don't turn anyone into a molester. What they do, however, is create an ideal environment where kiddy-fiddlers can hide and ply their trade.


Please explain what you mean by that.
 
2010-04-02 05:40:19 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: You wanted to make it look as if Ratzinger had ignored the situation, when in fact his right hand man sent off a letter. That is called delegating power.

I don't believe I've seen you address my question from the earlier thread, regarding what would happen to the CEO of Wal-Mart if his actions were similar to those of the Pontiff's.


What actions has the Pope taken?? Please provide sources so I can have enough information to decide the fate of the walmart CEO.
 
2010-04-02 06:02:58 PM  

nicksteel: What actions has the Pope taken??


Conspiracy to conceal sexual abuse of minors.
 
2010-04-02 06:06:25 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: What actions has the Pope taken??

Conspiracy to conceal sexual abuse of minors.


Possibly on a scale so large it defies belief.
 
2010-04-02 06:07:23 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: What actions has the Pope taken??

Conspiracy to conceal sexual abuse of minors.


you left this part out:

Please provide sources so I can have enough information to decide the fate of the walmart CEO.

And allow me to ask when the events happened and when did the Pope find out about it?
 
2010-04-02 06:08:06 PM  

gshepnyc: Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: What actions has the Pope taken??

Conspiracy to conceal sexual abuse of minors.

Possibly on a scale so large it defies belief.


can you prove any of that?
 
2010-04-02 06:09:20 PM  

nicksteel: Please explain what you mean by that.


I think it's fairly well understood that when you start a cult that spreads distortion, guilt, and fear regarding human sexuality, you're going to attract people who are into that kind of thing.

If you're the Catholic Church, and you demand that your priests remain celibate, you are going to get a few genuine asexuals, a bunch of harmless people who will at least pretend to torture themselves for you, and more than a few sociopathic perverts who need a place to hide and room to work.

But my guess is you knew that, and you're just putting on a facade of wide-eyed innocence for some reason.
 
2010-04-02 06:10:28 PM  

nicksteel: can you prove any of that?


Not my job. That's the job of the Justice Department... or at least, it would be, if we were talking about someone who sells cheap junk from China rather than bad ideas from Italy.
 
2010-04-02 06:15:28 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: Please explain what you mean by that.

I think it's fairly well understood that when you start a cult that spreads distortion, guilt, and fear regarding human sexuality, you're going to attract people who are into that kind of thing.

If you're the Catholic Church, and you demand that your priests remain celibate, you are going to get a few genuine asexuals, a bunch of harmless people who will at least pretend to torture themselves for you, and more than a few sociopathic perverts who need a place to hide and room to work.

But my guess is you knew that, and you're just putting on a facade of wide-eyed innocence for some reason.


you seem to be of the opinion that child molesters become priests because it is a good place to hide.

How much experience have you had directly with the Catholic Church? What religion, if any, do you practice.

That cult, as you call it, has been around for a very long time and has lots and lots of followers. And that does not consider the sects that have broken away.
 
2010-04-02 06:17:07 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: can you prove any of that?

Not my job. That's the job of the Justice Department... or at least, it would be, if we were talking about someone who sells cheap junk from China rather than bad ideas from Italy.


If you can't prove it, you should not make accusations. You make statements as if they are facts when they are really just your opinion based on your prejudice.
 
2010-04-02 06:17:26 PM  

nicksteel: How much experience have you had directly with the Catholic Church?


None, thank God.

What religion, if any, do you practice.

I'm an atheist.

That cult, as you call it, has been around for a very long time and has lots and lots of followers. And that does not consider the sects that have broken away.

Oh. OK.
 
2010-04-02 06:18:09 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: How much experience have you had directly with the Catholic Church?

None, thank God.

What religion, if any, do you practice.

I'm an atheist.

That cult, as you call it, has been around for a very long time and has lots and lots of followers. And that does not consider the sects that have broken away.

Oh. OK.


so, in your opinion, there is no God.
 
2010-04-02 06:20:33 PM  

nicksteel: so, in your opinion, there is no God.


You'd have to define what you mean by "God" before I could even offer an opinion.
 
2010-04-02 06:29:50 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: so, in your opinion, there is no God.

You'd have to define what you mean by "God" before I could even offer an opinion.


No I don't. It wouldn't do any good and I really don't care. Your dishonesty in dealing with the question you asked me, your obvious prejudice against the Catholic Church in particular and all religions in general is all I need to know.

you are just another smug fark asshole who makes grandiose accusations that he cannot support. A smug asshole who somehow thinks that he is smarter than those poor people who believe in God.
 
2010-04-02 06:31:56 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: so, in your opinion, there is no God.

You'd have to define what you mean by "God" before I could even offer an opinion.


nicksteel: How much experience have you had directly with the Catholic Church?

Man On Pink Corner: None, thank God.

nicksteel: What religion, if any, do you practice.

Man On Pink Corner: I'm an atheist.

and yet you use a phrase like "thank God" and you capitalize it every time, for good measure.
 
2010-04-02 06:44:08 PM  
I can't think of any group that would not only cover up acts of pedophillia, but go to rgeat lengths to unsure that the pedophiles had easy access to more children. I can't think of any group that would have the chutzpah to them say that they were being picked on for having done so, and that those critical of them were really anti-that-group.

Bottom line: pedophiles need to go to jail. If you covered that up, you need to at a minimum GTFO and maybe even go to jail for participating in the coverup of a CRIMINAL ACT. You need to compensate the victims (this has largely been covered already).

Stop defending yourselves.

Stop defending the pedophiles.

Admit your transgressions.

I think there's a place you can go and ask forgiveness.

This has nothing to do w/religion.

It has everything to do with common decency, compliance with the law and basically NOT DEFENDING CHILD farkERS.
 
2010-04-02 06:45:21 PM  

nicksteel: you are just another smug fark asshole who makes grandiose accusations that he cannot support. A smug asshole who somehow thinks that he is smarter than those poor people who believe in God.


I know I'm smarter than I was as a child when I believed in the local version of God, but I can't speak to anyone else's intelligence or lack thereof. There have been plenty of wise followers and many foolish atheists. As with most generalizations expressed in cultural or racial terms, it's likely that there's a wider distribution of brainpower within each category than there is between them.

What any of this has to do with the topic of the thread is certainly beyond my ability to grasp.
 
2010-04-02 06:47:49 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: you are just another smug fark asshole who makes grandiose accusations that he cannot support. A smug asshole who somehow thinks that he is smarter than those poor people who believe in God.

I know I'm smarter than I was as a child when I believed in the local version of God, but I can't speak to anyone else's intelligence or lack thereof. There have been plenty of wise followers and many foolish atheists. As with most generalizations expressed in cultural or racial terms, it's likely that there's a wider distribution of brainpower within each category than there is between them.

What any of this has to do with the topic of the thread is certainly beyond my ability to grasp.


You are just another smug asshole who enjoys attacking religion. This thread was designed for you.
 
2010-04-02 06:48:32 PM  

nicksteel: and yet you use a phrase like "thank God" and you capitalize it every time, for good measure.


Hey, why take chances? I'm just covering Pascal's Wager, like the rest of those "poor people."
 
2010-04-02 06:50:58 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: and yet you use a phrase like "thank God" and you capitalize it every time, for good measure.

Hey, why take chances? I'm just covering Pascal's Wager, like the rest of those "poor people."


some atheist you are.
 
2010-04-02 06:52:10 PM  

nicksteel: some atheist you are.


Yeah, I'm considered a real heretic in those circles. They've threatened to revoke my membership card more than once.
 
2010-04-02 06:53:28 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: some atheist you are.

Yeah, I'm considered a real heretic in those circles. They've threatened to revoke my membership card more than once.


they should, you are no more an atheist than half the people who say that they believe in God. I believe that you are all called "doubting Thomas's".
 
2010-04-02 06:53:28 PM  

zahadum party planner: I can't think of any group that would not only cover up acts of pedophillia, but go to rgeat lengths to unsure that the pedophiles had easy access to more children. I can't think of any group that would have the chutzpah to them say that they were being picked on for having done so, and that those critical of them were really anti-that-group.

Bottom line: pedophiles need to go to jail. If you covered that up, you need to at a minimum GTFO and maybe even go to jail for participating in the coverup of a CRIMINAL ACT. You need to compensate the victims (this has largely been covered already).

Stop defending yourselves.

Stop defending the pedophiles.

Admit your transgressions.

I think there's a place you can go and ask forgiveness.

This has nothing to do w/religion.

It has everything to do with common decency, compliance with the law and basically NOT DEFENDING CHILD farkERS.


I think everyone, even the Church, has the right to defend itself because no human being is so one-dimensional he can be judged by a single aspect, and this is not a single human being but many people, some of whom ARE innocent. However, they have a systemic aversion to joining the real world that has to be addressed. They are behaving as though they still have a feudal privilege when it comes to the children of their peasants. They are acting as though this whole episode is about the sanctity of their heirarchy and not about rape. That much has to stop.
 
2010-04-02 06:58:13 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2010-04-02 07:01:34 PM  
Man On Pink Corner: .

face it, you are not an atheist, you are confused.
 
2010-04-02 07:06:23 PM  

nicksteel: face it, you are not an atheist, you are confused.


I can't be both?
 
2010-04-02 07:09:59 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: face it, you are not an atheist, you are confused.

I can't be both?

 
2010-04-02 07:11:11 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: face it, you are not an atheist, you are confused.

I can't be both?


No, I don't believe atheism allows for confusion. It's yes or no, not maybe.
 
2010-04-02 07:20:52 PM  

NightOwl2255: : nicksteel: You wanted to make it look as if Ratzinger had ignored the situation, when in fact his right hand man sent off a letter. That is called delegating power. You, of all people, should understand that Ratzinger knew of this letter. You are the one who stated that he was a micro manager. You cannot have it both ways, either he was a micro manager or he wasn't.

He ignored it for 8 months, and it was not until Wakeland sent a second letter, not to Ratzinger this time, that he received a response. If Wakeland would not have sent a second letter Ratzinger would have just continued to ignore the situation, which the church has become so good at doing.

let's recap. Your initial position.

1. Nobody responded to the letter.
2. Okay somebody responded, but it was not Ratzinger.
3. Okay the guy who responded worked directly for Ratzinger
4. The letter was ignored for 8 months. (This is the first time that you have said anything about a second letter.)


I think that it is time for you to provide a citation that supports your claim. Feel free to change it again if that makes it easier.

BTW, do you know what Father Murphy was put on trial by the Bishop?


Interesting. I ask you to provide some sort of proof and you disappear. It's been over two hours. That tells me all I need to know about you.
 
2010-04-02 07:32:20 PM  

nicksteel: Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: face it, you are not an atheist, you are confused.

I can't be both?

No, I don't believe atheism allows for confusion. It's yes or no, not maybe.


He's right, Pink. I'm going to have to take your badge and gun.
 
2010-04-02 07:37:29 PM  

Hoban Washburne: nicksteel: Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: face it, you are not an atheist, you are confused.

I can't be both?

No, I don't believe atheism allows for confusion. It's yes or no, not maybe.

He's right, Pink. I'm going to have to take your badge and gun.


Atheists get badges and guns?? Sweet perk.
 
2010-04-02 07:45:44 PM  

nicksteel: Hoban Washburne: nicksteel: Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: face it, you are not an atheist, you are confused.

I can't be both?

No, I don't believe atheism allows for confusion. It's yes or no, not maybe.

He's right, Pink. I'm going to have to take your badge and gun.

Atheists get badges and guns?? Sweet perk.


Yeah, but don't worry. If anybody abuses their power and starts shooting innocent people, they are immediately informally reprimanded and reassigned to a new location.
 
2010-04-02 07:50:02 PM  

Hoban Washburne: nicksteel: Hoban Washburne: nicksteel: Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: face it, you are not an atheist, you are confused.

I can't be both?

No, I don't believe atheism allows for confusion. It's yes or no, not maybe.

He's right, Pink. I'm going to have to take your badge and gun.

Atheists get badges and guns?? Sweet perk.

Yeah, but don't worry. If anybody abuses their power and starts shooting innocent people, they are immediately informally reprimanded and reassigned to a new location.


While that sort of thing may sound good at the start, I believe that it will lead to trouble over the long run.

Who is the leader of the atheist non-church? Do you have non-church picnics?
 
2010-04-02 07:55:47 PM  

nicksteel: Hoban Washburne: nicksteel: Hoban Washburne: nicksteel: Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: face it, you are not an atheist, you are confused.

I can't be both?

No, I don't believe atheism allows for confusion. It's yes or no, not maybe.

He's right, Pink. I'm going to have to take your badge and gun.

Atheists get badges and guns?? Sweet perk.

Yeah, but don't worry. If anybody abuses their power and starts shooting innocent people, they are immediately informally reprimanded and reassigned to a new location.

While that sort of thing may sound good at the start, I believe that it will lead to trouble over the long run.

Who is the leader of the atheist non-church? Do you have non-church picnics?


hahahahahaha
 
2010-04-02 07:58:07 PM  

nicksteel: No, I don't believe atheism allows for confusion. It's yes or no, not maybe.


Actually that would be "gnostic atheism," which is only one of four positions in the theistic/atheistic, gnostic/agnostic space. This space has at least two dimensions, one theological and one epistemological. There could be other dimensions as well, depending on the point someone is trying to make (apathy/concern being an obvious possible third).

"Gnostic atheism" is what you're referring to. A gnostic atheist maintains that lack of any apparent evidence for a deity is equivalent to its definite absence.

I'd be considered more of an "agnostic atheist". This term describes someone who has no reason to believe in any specific deities, and who lives his life without acknowledging anyone else's concept of a deity, yet does not profess certainty about the existence of other beings who may or may not be considered deities by other people.

Of course, the axis that indicates to what extent someone considers it OK to molest children, or to tolerate those who do, is entirely orthogonal to this plane.
 
2010-04-02 07:58:36 PM  

Hoban Washburne: nicksteel: Hoban Washburne: nicksteel: Hoban Washburne: nicksteel: Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: face it, you are not an atheist, you are confused.

I can't be both?

No, I don't believe atheism allows for confusion. It's yes or no, not maybe.

He's right, Pink. I'm going to have to take your badge and gun.

Atheists get badges and guns?? Sweet perk.

Yeah, but don't worry. If anybody abuses their power and starts shooting innocent people, they are immediately informally reprimanded and reassigned to a new location.

While that sort of thing may sound good at the start, I believe that it will lead to trouble over the long run.

Who is the leader of the atheist non-church? Do you have non-church picnics?

hahahahahaha


the best part of any church is the church picnic - free beer and lots of it.
 
2010-04-02 08:01:28 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: No, I don't believe atheism allows for confusion. It's yes or no, not maybe.

Actually that would be "gnostic atheism," which is only one of four positions in the theistic/atheistic, gnostic/agnostic space. This space has at least two dimensions, one theological and one epistemological. There could be other dimensions as well, depending on the point someone is trying to make (apathy/concern being an obvious possible third).

"Gnostic atheism" is what you're referring to. A gnostic atheist maintains that lack of any apparent evidence for a deity is equivalent to its definite absence.

I'd be considered more of an "agnostic atheist". This term describes someone who has no reason to believe in any specific deities, and who lives his life without acknowledging anyone else's concept of a deity, yet does not profess certainty about the existence of other beings who may or may not be considered deities by other people.

Of course, the axis that indicates to what extent someone considers it OK to molest children, or to tolerate those who do, is entirely orthogonal to this plane.


I don't believe that 99% of Christians have apparent evidence. You either have faith that there is a God or faith that there isn't. weird, when you think about it.
 
2010-04-02 08:13:33 PM  

nicksteel: Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: No, I don't believe atheism allows for confusion. It's yes or no, not maybe.

Actually that would be "gnostic atheism," which is only one of four positions in the theistic/atheistic, gnostic/agnostic space. This space has at least two dimensions, one theological and one epistemological. There could be other dimensions as well, depending on the point someone is trying to make (apathy/concern being an obvious possible third).

"Gnostic atheism" is what you're referring to. A gnostic atheist maintains that lack of any apparent evidence for a deity is equivalent to its definite absence.

I'd be considered more of an "agnostic atheist". This term describes someone who has no reason to believe in any specific deities, and who lives his life without acknowledging anyone else's concept of a deity, yet does not profess certainty about the existence of other beings who may or may not be considered deities by other people.

Of course, the axis that indicates to what extent someone considers it OK to molest children, or to tolerate those who do, is entirely orthogonal to this plane.

I don't believe that 99% of Christians have apparent evidence. You either have faith that there is a God or faith that there isn't. weird, when you think about it.


That's funny. I neither have faith that there is or isn't a god.
 
2010-04-02 09:03:37 PM  

nicksteel: I don't believe that 99% of Christians have apparent evidence. You either have faith that there is an invisible teapot in orbit around Neptune God or faith that there isn't. weird, when you think about it.


Yep. Weird.
 
2010-04-02 09:22:47 PM  

Hoban Washburne: nicksteel: Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: No, I don't believe atheism allows for confusion. It's yes or no, not maybe.

Actually that would be "gnostic atheism," which is only one of four positions in the theistic/atheistic, gnostic/agnostic space. This space has at least two dimensions, one theological and one epistemological. There could be other dimensions as well, depending on the point someone is trying to make (apathy/concern being an obvious possible third).

"Gnostic atheism" is what you're referring to. A gnostic atheist maintains that lack of any apparent evidence for a deity is equivalent to its definite absence.

I'd be considered more of an "agnostic atheist". This term describes someone who has no reason to believe in any specific deities, and who lives his life without acknowledging anyone else's concept of a deity, yet does not profess certainty about the existence of other beings who may or may not be considered deities by other people.

Of course, the axis that indicates to what extent someone considers it OK to molest children, or to tolerate those who do, is entirely orthogonal to this plane.

I don't believe that 99% of Christians have apparent evidence. You either have faith that there is a God or faith that there isn't. weird, when you think about it.

That's funny. I neither have faith that there is or isn't a god.


so what do you say when somebody sneezes?
 
2010-04-02 09:32:16 PM  

nicksteel: let's recap. Your initial position.

1. Nobody responded to the letter.
2. Okay somebody responded, but it was not Ratzinger.
3. Okay the guy who responded worked directly for Ratzinger
4. The letter was ignored for 8 months. (This is the first time that you have said anything about a second letter.)


I think that it is time for you to provide a citation that supports your claim. Feel free to change it again if that makes it easier.


You are one pathetic lying weasel.

1: I NEVER said that no one respond. I said Ratzinger never responded, and he didn't respond, ever, to Wakeland. When the abuser priest appealed to Ratzinger, Ratzinger responded.

2: Eight months latter Ratzinger second in command responded to Wakelands letter directed to him. No one ever responded to the first letter 8 months earlier.

3: Yes, he worked for Ratzinger, but he was not Ratzinger.

4: I have said numerous times that Wakefield sent a second letter 8 months later, after his first letter to Ratzinger went ignored.


nicksteel: BTW, do you know what Father Murphy was put on trial by the Bishop?


Yes, I do know. I've read the evidence here. (new window)

He was put on trial for using the confessional to abuse deaf boys, as young as 12.
 
2010-04-02 09:35:23 PM  
Nicky, I'm calling your lying ass out. Show one post of mine that was factually incorrect or a lie.

Just one. Come on big boy, if I'm so full of shiat it should be easy.
 
2010-04-02 09:49:36 PM  

NightOwl2255: Nicky, I'm calling your lying ass out. Show one post of mine that was factually incorrect or a lie.

Just one. Come on big boy, if I'm so full of shiat it should be easy.


let's recap. Your initial position.

1. Nobody responded to the letter.
2. Okay somebody responded, but it was not Ratzinger.
3. Okay the guy who responded worked directly for Ratzinger
4. The letter was ignored for 8 months. (This is the first time that you have said anything about a second letter.)

One of your posts: Here (new window)are documents that the church had to turn over in a court case. They clearly show that the archbishop wrote to Ratzinger about an abuser priest and never received a reply. At the time Ratzinger was the heard of the Doctrine of the Faith. It was his job to deal with abusive priest.

another of your posts: Weakland had written Ratzinger in July of 1996 and was ignored. It was only after waiting 8 months and writing a second time that the secret canon trial was approved. Ratzinger ignored the first request.

The truth is that the Bishop was not ignored. The letter was answered by Ratzinger's right hand man.


So, provide a citation that proves that the first letter was totally ignored.

What was the purpose the the secret canon trial?
 
2010-04-02 09:53:09 PM  

nicksteel: The truth is that the Bishop was not ignored. The letter was answered by Ratzinger's right hand man.


No, it was not. This is from Wakelands SECOND letter, 8 months after he sent the first:

i939.photobucket.comView Full Size


Notice the last line, he was ignored. The first the Vatican responded was after the second letter.

Dude, you are just flat wrong.
 
2010-04-02 09:55:46 PM  
In case you want to see the documents yourself, it's all here. (new window)
 
2010-04-02 10:00:16 PM  

nicksteel: So, provide a citation that proves that the first letter was totally ignored.


Man, it's not often someone gets so totally pwned on Fark.

Let's see that again:
i939.photobucket.comView Full Size


First letter: July 17, 1996
Second letter: March 10, 1997

Eight months later, just like I said.

Damn, does it sting much?
 
2010-04-02 10:09:53 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: The truth is that the Bishop was not ignored. The letter was answered by Ratzinger's right hand man.

No, it was not. This is from Wakelands SECOND letter, 8 months after he sent the first:

Notice the last line, he was ignored. The first the Vatican responded was after the second letter.

Dude, you are just flat wrong.


I did not lie. The Bishop lied. The entire article that you love to quote was an effort by Goldstein and the Bishop to take the blame off of his shoulders and put the blame on Ratzinger.

"And that is where the anti-Catholic bias of the article becomes evident. Goodstein has been writing about matters Catholic for some time now; indeed, as Father de Souza points out, she

has a recent history with Archbishop Weakland. Last year, upon the release of the disgraced archbishop's autobiography, she wrote an unusually sympathetic story that buried all the most serious allegations against him (New York Times, May 14, 2009)"

Look at the clip from that story you included. The Bishop indicates that he became aware of the details in 1996.

"Archbishop Weakland, who had known about the Father Murphy case for over 20 years, had authority over it from 1977 on, and declined to do anything about it until 1996."

And you are wrong about the purpose for the secret trial. The statute of limitations had run out on child abuse charges. The crime under consideration at that time-abuse of the Sacrament of Confession-is only a canonical crime, not a civil one.

"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not have jurisdiction over sexual-abuse cases until 2001, six years after the canonical trial of Father Murphy began. Revealing that fact destroys the tidy narrative Goodstein has built up, because it makes it clear to even the cursory reader that the Father Murphy case, in 1996, could not have been the same as the Father Murphy case in 1974."
Link (new window)
 
2010-04-02 10:11:22 PM  

NightOwl2255: In case you want to see the documents yourself, it's all here. (new window)


Most people don't take ONE newspaper article as the truth, the absolute truth and nothing but the truth.
 
2010-04-02 10:20:37 PM  

nicksteel: I did not lie. The Bishop lied. The entire article that you love to quote was an effort by Goldstein and the Bishop to take the blame off of his shoulders and put the blame on Ratzinger.


Man, you just do not give up. No matter how wrong. I have not quoted a single thing Goldstean wrote. Everything I have quoted is from documents that were turned over to lawyers as part of discovery for a civil lawsuit.

Is the New York Times making up documents?

Are you saying that when, in 1997, Wakeland wrote that his first letter from 8 months earlier had been ignored, he was lying?

Stop your BSing. It's too easy to prove you wrong, as I have so many times I have lost count.

You have yet to show a single instance where I was wrong. But, don't let that stop you from tying again. This is fun, making you look like an idiot.
 
2010-04-02 10:23:52 PM  

nicksteel: Most people don't take ONE newspaper article as the truth, the absolute truth and nothing but the truth.


Really? Really? The New York Times publishes documents from a lawsuit, and you are really going to question the authenticity.

Is that how desperate you have become?

Sad, dude. Sad.
 
2010-04-02 10:26:05 PM  
Nicky, you are so full of shiat, if someone showed a video of Fr. Murphy abusing a 12 year old deaf boy, you would claim it was 'shopped. Never argue the facts, is that your style?
 
2010-04-02 10:29:42 PM  

nicksteel: And you are wrong about the purpose for the secret trial. The statute of limitations had run out on child abuse charges. The crime under consideration at that time-abuse of the Sacrament of Confession-is only a canonical crime, not a civil one.


You say I was wrong? Let's see what I wrote: He was put on trial for using the confessional to abuse deaf boys, as young as 12.

So, once again, what I said was correct. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
2010-04-02 10:31:23 PM  
Damn, Nicky, you really don't need to help me here, unless you like being wrong, and being called out on it.
 
2010-04-02 10:35:16 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: Most people don't take ONE newspaper article as the truth, the absolute truth and nothing but the truth.

Really? Really? The New York Times publishes documents from a lawsuit, and you are really going to question the authenticity.

Is that how desperate you have become?

Sad, dude. Sad.


what lawsuit? They were not used in the trial against Murphy.
 
2010-04-02 10:36:16 PM  

NightOwl2255: Really? Really? The New York Times publishes documents from a lawsuit, and you are really going to question the authenticity.


New York Times? Pshaw.

But anything written 2,000+ years ago by a tribe of nomadic camel-herders? Well, you can take that to the bank.
 
2010-04-02 10:41:11 PM  

nicksteel: what lawsuit? They were not used in the trial against Murphy.


It was a civil lawsuit again the church by several of Fr. Murphy's victims. The trial against Murphy was secret, and was stopped after Murphy wrote Ratzinger and asked for mercy. Something Murphy never gave to the 200 boys he abused. And the church would never release documents like this willingly.
 
2010-04-02 10:43:15 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: But anything written 2,000+ years ago by a tribe of nomadic camel-herders? Well, you can take that to the bank.


Gawd damn you! The Invisible Sky Wizard parted the Red Sea, it's in the bible!
 
2010-04-02 10:43:34 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: I did not lie. The Bishop lied. The entire article that you love to quote was an effort by Goldstein and the Bishop to take the blame off of his shoulders and put the blame on Ratzinger.

Man, you just do not give up. No matter how wrong. I have not quoted a single thing Goldstean wrote. Everything I have quoted is from documents that were turned over to lawyers as part of discovery for a civil lawsuit.

Is the New York Times making up documents?

Are you saying that when, in 1997, Wakeland wrote that his first letter from 8 months earlier had been ignored, he was lying?

Stop your BSing. It's too easy to prove you wrong, as I have so many times I have lost count.

You have yet to show a single instance where I was wrong. But, don't let that stop you from tying again. This is fun, making you look like an idiot.


Weakland had known about Murphy since 1977. Weakland was in charge of the archdiocese from 1977 until 2002. Why did he want until 1997 to send a letter to the Pope saying that this had just come to his attention?

There is no proof that Weakland even wrote two letters.
 
2010-04-02 10:47:03 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: And you are wrong about the purpose for the secret trial. The statute of limitations had run out on child abuse charges. The crime under consideration at that time-abuse of the Sacrament of Confession-is only a canonical crime, not a civil one.

You say I was wrong? Let's see what I wrote: He was put on trial for using the confessional to abuse deaf boys, as young as 12.

So, once again, what I said was correct. Thanks for pointing that out.


You really are as thick as a brick. The trial was not because he used the confessional to abuse the boys. The trial was because Father Murphy was alleged to have granted some of his victims absolution for sexual sins in which he had taken part-such a serious violation of the sacrament and of the duties of the priesthood that there is no statute of limitations on the offense.

Do you understand that, skippy????

In 1997, Murphy could not be put on trial for abusing young boys because the statute of limitations had expired on those charges. I realize that this is the third time I have pointed this out to you, maybe it will get through that brick this time.
 
2010-04-02 10:49:41 PM  

nicksteel: There is no proof that Weakland even wrote two letters.


Jebus, you are an idiot. So, the NY Times faked two letters, written on church letter head, stamped with the court ID numbers.

Is that really your last gasp argument?
 
2010-04-02 10:52:34 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: what lawsuit? They were not used in the trial against Murphy.

It was a civil lawsuit again the church by several of Fr. Murphy's victims. The trial against Murphy was secret, and was stopped after Murphy wrote Ratzinger and asked for mercy. Something Murphy never gave to the 200 boys he abused. And the church would never release documents like this willingly.


Far from it, Ratzinger did not have the trial stopped.

"The trial continued for over a year and a half, even though, in May 1998, Archbishop Bertone, in a meeting with Archbishop Weakland in Rome, discussed other options "that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry," since Father Murphy was close to death. Archbishop Weakland declined to pursue such options until August 19, 1998, two days before Father Murphy died-at which point it was too late."

here, have somebody read this and explain it to you: Link
 
2010-04-02 10:57:37 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: There is no proof that Weakland even wrote two letters.

Jebus, you are an idiot. So, the NY Times faked two letters, written on church letter head, stamped with the court ID numbers.

Is that really your last gasp argument?


Of course the Times did not fake the letters, Weakland did. He duped the Times and he duped the court. There was no second letter.

Link (new window)
 
2010-04-02 10:57:55 PM  

nicksteel: You really are as thick as a brick. The trial was not because he used the confessional to abuse the boys. The trial was because Father Murphy was alleged to have granted some of his victims absolution for sexual sins in which he had taken part-such a serious violation of the sacrament and of the duties of the priesthood that there is no statute of limitations on the offense.


Gasp, gasp, gasp, Nicky is going down for the third time.

This is from the letter to Murphy telling him what he was being charged with:
i939.photobucket.comView Full Size


Notice the one on top if the list, Solicitation of sexual favors in the confessional?

Once again, I am correct.

Keep trying.

Show your proof, skippy.
 
2010-04-02 11:06:00 PM  

nicksteel: Of course the Times did not fake the letters, Weakland did. He duped the Times and he duped the court. There was no second letter.


Would you care to explain how, in any way, that article, which never mentions the second letter proves it was fake? Dude, that's just stupid.
 
2010-04-02 11:09:12 PM  

NightOwl2255: Nicky, you are so full of shiat, if someone showed a video of Fr. Murphy abusing a 12 year old deaf boy, you would claim it was 'shopped. Never argue the facts, is that your style?


This is not about Murphy. It is about you distorting the truth.
 
2010-04-02 11:10:55 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: Of course the Times did not fake the letters, Weakland did. He duped the Times and he duped the court. There was no second letter.

Would you care to explain how, in any way, that article, which never mentions the second letter proves it was fake? Dude, that's just stupid.


I have given you all sorts of links to show you the error of your arguments. I will not repeat them just because you are too stupid to understand.
 
2010-04-02 11:12:25 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: You really are as thick as a brick. The trial was not because he used the confessional to abuse the boys. The trial was because Father Murphy was alleged to have granted some of his victims absolution for sexual sins in which he had taken part-such a serious violation of the sacrament and of the duties of the priesthood that there is no statute of limitations on the offense.

Gasp, gasp, gasp, Nicky is going down for the third time.

This is from the letter to Murphy telling him what he was being charged with:


Notice the one on top if the list, Solicitation of sexual favors in the confessional?

Once again, I am correct.

Keep trying.

Show your proof, skippy.


Those charges were dropped and the trial was moved to Superior, Wisconsin. That is where Murphy was living.

Statute of limitations - do you know what that means??
 
2010-04-02 11:14:08 PM  

nicksteel: Far from it, Ratzinger did not have the trial stopped.


In Jan of 1998, Murphy wrote Ratzinger asking for mercy. In April of 1998, Ratzinger second in command wrote Weakland and asked for Pastoral Care instead of a trial. Wakeland basically said no, he was going to be tried. Weakland was then summoned to the Vatican and shorty after meeting with Ratzinger's second in command stopped the trial. It's clear to me, and many others, that Ratzinger ordered the trial stopped.
 
2010-04-02 11:17:42 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: Far from it, Ratzinger did not have the trial stopped.

In Jan of 1998, Murphy wrote Ratzinger asking for mercy. In April of 1998, Ratzinger second in command wrote Weakland and asked for Pastoral Care instead of a trial. Wakeland basically said no, he was going to be tried. Weakland was then summoned to the Vatican and shorty after meeting with Ratzinger's second in command stopped the trial. It's clear to me, and many others, that Ratzinger ordered the trial stopped.


The trial was not stopped, Murphy died.

"Father Brundage, who is now working in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, posted an essay this week saying he was never informed that the trial of Father Murphy had been halted."
 
2010-04-02 11:23:41 PM  
"The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did not have jurisdiction over sexual-abuse cases until 2001, six years after the canonical trial of Father Murphy began.

Ratzinger could not have stopped the trial if he had wanted to.
 
2010-04-02 11:25:58 PM  

nicksteel: Those charges were dropped and the trial was moved to Superior, Wisconsin.


No, they were not dropped. He was charged, and tried for solicitation in the confessional. Once again here is proof:

i939.photobucket.comView Full Size


Notice the date and crime he is bring charged with?
 
2010-04-02 11:31:09 PM  

nicksteel: The trial was not stopped, Murphy died.


Wrong. This is from a letter on Aug. 19th, 1998.

i939.photobucket.com

Murphy didn't die until Sept 1998. The trial was stopped before Murphy died. Once again, you are wrong.
 
2010-04-02 11:33:08 PM  

nicksteel: I have given you all sorts of links to show you the error of your arguments. I will not repeat them just because you are too stupid to understand.


You have shown nothing that in any way indicates the second letter is fake. NOTHING.
 
2010-04-02 11:35:00 PM  

nicksteel: Weakland had known about Murphy since 1977. Weakland was in charge of the archdiocese from 1977 until 2002. Why did he want until 1997 to send a letter to the Pope saying that this had just come to his attention?


More to the point, why did he send a letter to the Pope, and not the police?
 
2010-04-02 11:37:48 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: Those charges were dropped and the trial was moved to Superior, Wisconsin.

No, they were not dropped. He was charged, and tried for solicitation in the confessional. Once again here is proof:

Notice the date and crime he is bring charged with?


Dec. 14, 1997: A decree by Bishop Raphael Fliss indicates the case has moved to the Superior Diocese, where Murphy was residing in Boulder Junction. Charges are reissuedNightOwl2255: nicksteel: The truth is that the Bishop was not ignored. The letter was answered by Ratzinger's right hand man.

No, it was not. This is from Wakelands SECOND letter, 8 months after he sent the first:

Notice the last line, he was ignored. The first the Vatican responded was after the second letter.

Dude, you are just flat wrong.


in that jurisdiction.

July 17, 1996: Weakland writes to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith outlining Murphy's history and seeking direction on how to proceed in bringing a case against him under canon law. It's a complex case, subject to competing judicial norms. He receives no answer until March 1997, but the process moves on.

He wrote ONE letter.
 
2010-04-02 11:41:06 PM  
presiding Judge statement:

In the summer of 1998, I ordered Father Murphy to be present at a deposition at the chancery in Milwaukee. I received, soon after, a letter from his doctor that he was in frail health and could travel not more than 20 miles (Boulder Junction to Milwaukee would be about 276 miles). A week later, Father Murphy died of natural causes in a location about 100 miles from his home.

Ratzinger did not stop the trial. Death did.
 
2010-04-02 11:43:29 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: nicksteel: Weakland had known about Murphy since 1977. Weakland was in charge of the archdiocese from 1977 until 2002. Why did he want until 1997 to send a letter to the Pope saying that this had just come to his attention?

More to the point, why did he send a letter to the Pope, and not the police?


The statute of limitations had run out by 1997. The police had been involved much earlier. They did not press charges.
 
2010-04-02 11:44:30 PM  
Laicization or "defrocking" simply returns a priest to the canonical status of a lay person. But he is still a priest, because once validly ordained a priest, you are a priest forever. So even if Murphy had been "defrocked" in would have still died a "priest." If he lived and was defrocked, in an emergency when no other priest was available he could still hear the confession of a dying person and offer the last rites. No one in the Church can change the "dogmatic" teaching of the church concerning the "indelible" imprint of ordination on the soul of a priest which cannot be removed by the pope or the liberal press. Reporters, please do your homework before your besmirch an entire religious institution by getting facts wrong, out of order and misunderstanding the legal processes of the Church which require, like civil law, due process.
 
2010-04-02 11:46:42 PM  

nicksteel: July 17, 1996: Weakland writes to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith outlining Murphy's history and seeking direction on how to proceed in bringing a case against him under canon law. It's a complex case, subject to competing judicial norms. He receives no answer until March 1997, but the process moves on.

He wrote ONE letter.


Damn, how may times do I have to tell you this, the second letter, the one 8 months was not addressed to Ratzinger.

i939.photobucket.comView Full Size


Ratzinger had ignored the first letter so Wakeland wrote to another Vatican official. I have told you this several times.
 
2010-04-02 11:47:04 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: I have given you all sorts of links to show you the error of your arguments. I will not repeat them just because you are too stupid to understand.

You have shown nothing that in any way indicates the second letter is fake. NOTHING.


You have shown nothing to prove that a second letter existed.
 
2010-04-02 11:53:20 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: July 17, 1996: Weakland writes to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith outlining Murphy's history and seeking direction on how to proceed in bringing a case against him under canon law. It's a complex case, subject to competing judicial norms. He receives no answer until March 1997, but the process moves on.

He wrote ONE letter.

Damn, how may times do I have to tell you this, the second letter, the one 8 months was not addressed to Ratzinger.

Ratzinger had ignored the first letter so Wakeland wrote to another Vatican official. I have told you this several times.


your words:"No, it was not at the same time. Weakland wrote to Ratzinger in July of 1996. Murphy did not write to Ratzinger until Jan. of 1998. Ratzinger ignored Archbishop Weakland's request for a canon trial. It wasn't until Weakland wrote a second letter 8 months after the first that Weakland got a response, and it was not from Ratzinger."

That looks like you are saying both went to Ratzinger.

How could Ratzinger have ignored the first letter when it is obvious that he had his second in command write a letter in response.
 
2010-04-03 12:12:25 AM  

nicksteel: That looks like you are saying both went to Ratzinger.

How could Ratzinger have ignored the first letter when it is obvious that he had his second in command write a letter in response.


It may look like that to you, but I never said he wrote the second to Ratzinger. In Wakeland's own words in the second letter to another Vatican official "I have received no response".

Ratzinger ignored the first letter.
 
2010-04-03 12:21:04 AM  

nicksteel: You have shown nothing to prove that a second letter existed.


I have linked to the NY Times showing a copy of the second letter. The letter that was directly addressed in the Vatican's response. You make some wild assed claim that the letter was fake, which in doing do you admit the letter exist. You are most likely to stupid to even see the irony there.

You are just plain too stupid to reason with.

You ask for proof, I give you proof, you claim proof is fake without one bit of evidence. Nice debating style asshat.

You have proven me wrong in one aspect, I didn't think I could tire of beating a morons brains into the ground. I was wrong.
 
2010-04-03 12:24:35 AM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: That looks like you are saying both went to Ratzinger.

How could Ratzinger have ignored the first letter when it is obvious that he had his second in command write a letter in response.

It may look like that to you, but I never said he wrote the second to Ratzinger. In Wakeland's own words in the second letter to another Vatican official "I have received no response".

Ratzinger ignored the first letter.


You say that Weakland wrote ONE letter to Ratzinger that was ignored. Not true, Ratzinger had his second in command respond. You yourself have stated that Ratzinger is a micro manager - he would have known the letter was written. He would have at least approved the writing of the letter and may well have directed his second in command to write it.
 
2010-04-03 12:25:59 AM  

nicksteel: Ratzinger did not stop the trial. Death did.


The trial was stopped on orders from Wakeland several weeks before Murphy died. You are, once again, wrong.

As I said several times, I believe that Wakeland was acting on orders from Ratzinger. But, I do not have proof, so I will have to say I believe and not I know.
 
2010-04-03 12:29:26 AM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: You have shown nothing to prove that a second letter existed.

I have linked to the NY Times showing a copy of the second letter. The letter that was directly addressed in the Vatican's response. You make some wild assed claim that the letter was fake, which in doing do you admit the letter exist. You are most likely to stupid to even see the irony there.

You are just plain too stupid to reason with.

You ask for proof, I give you proof, you claim proof is fake without one bit of evidence. Nice debating style asshat.

You have proven me wrong in one aspect, I didn't think I could tire of beating a morons brains into the ground. I was wrong.


a fake letter does not mean that the letter exists. A fake letter means that a letter was not sent to Ratzinger. A fake letter as opposed to a real letter that was actually sent to somebody.

At this point, you have sent so many letters to so many places that it is insane. You back track, you move the goal posts, you contradict yourself.

You have been beating your own brains in, moron.
 
2010-04-03 12:30:28 AM  
Link (new window)

A time line of events that does not mention a second letter. How odd.
 
2010-04-03 12:31:53 AM  

nicksteel: You say that Weakland wrote ONE letter to Ratzinger that was ignored. Not true, Ratzinger had his second in command respond.


Are you really that stupid? Really?

I will tell you one last time. The first letter that Wakeland wrote to Ratzinger was ignored, it was never responded to. Never.

It was not until Wakeland wrote a second letter 8 months later, to a different Vatican official, that Wakeland received a response. Wakeland NEVER received a response to the first letter to Ratzinger. It's a fact. You can argue all you want, but you will still be wrong.
 
2010-04-03 12:34:56 AM  

nicksteel: At this point, you have sent so many letters to so many places that it is insane. You back track, you move the goal posts, you contradict yourself.


Sure big boy, sure. Care to show an example?
 
2010-04-03 12:35:48 AM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: Ratzinger did not stop the trial. Death did.

The trial was stopped on orders from Wakeland several weeks before Murphy died. You are, once again, wrong.

As I said several times, I believe that Wakeland was acting on orders from Ratzinger. But, I do not have proof, so I will have to say I believe and not I know.


In the words of the trial judge:

"Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this. Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer."


"In the summer of 1998, I ordered Father Murphy to be present at a deposition at the chancery in Milwaukee. I received, soon after, a letter from his doctor that he was in frail health and could travel not more than 20 miles (Boulder Junction to Milwaukee would be about 276 miles). A week later, Father Murphy died of natural causes in a location about 100 miles from his home"

trial was not stopped, it was not ordered to be stopped.
 
2010-04-03 12:36:44 AM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: At this point, you have sent so many letters to so many places that it is insane. You back track, you move the goal posts, you contradict yourself.

Sure big boy, sure. Care to show an example?


you, scroll through the thread and see if you can track you comments. The contradictions of the contradictions are all over the place.
 
2010-04-03 12:37:41 AM  

nicksteel: A time line of events that does not mention a second letter. How odd.


An article that does not mention a letter proves the letter doesn't exist? Really? Is that what you are going with?

All of a sudden you are a true believer in the press? Kind of changing your tune aren't you?
 
2010-04-03 12:39:00 AM  

nicksteel: you, scroll through the thread and see if you can track you comments. The contradictions of the contradictions are all over the place.


So, that means you can't. Check.
 
2010-04-03 12:40:42 AM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: You say that Weakland wrote ONE letter to Ratzinger that was ignored. Not true, Ratzinger had his second in command respond.

Are you really that stupid? Really?

I will tell you one last time. The first letter that Wakeland wrote to Ratzinger was ignored, it was never responded to. Never.

It was not until Wakeland wrote a second letter 8 months later, to a different Vatican official, that Wakeland received a response. Wakeland NEVER received a response to the first letter to Ratzinger. It's a fact. You can argue all you want, but you will still be wrong.


really?

"March 24, 1997: Ratzinger's deputy, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican's secretary of state, writes to Weakland asking that he proceed against Murphy using the 1962 norms, which dictated how to handle cases of priests soliciting sex in confessional."
 
2010-04-03 12:42:01 AM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: you, scroll through the thread and see if you can track you comments. The contradictions of the contradictions are all over the place.

So, that means you can't. Check.


Why waste my time any further. It's all there, you are just not smart enough to recognize it and I am getting tired of you repeating the same lies over and over and over.
 
2010-04-03 12:44:36 AM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: A time line of events that does not mention a second letter. How odd.

An article that does not mention a letter proves the letter doesn't exist? Really? Is that what you are going with?

All of a sudden you are a true believer in the press? Kind of changing your tune aren't you?


This article, in a Wisconsin paper, is part of a series that covers the events. Yes, I believe this paper, the reporters don't have an axe to grind.
 
2010-04-03 12:48:05 AM  

nicksteel: trial was not stopped, it was not ordered to be stopped.


Wrong, again

i939.photobucket.comView Full Size

i939.photobucket.comView Full Size

i939.photobucket.comView Full Size


Do you know what abate means? This letter was written Aug. 19th. Murphy died on Sept. 2nd.

The trial was stopped.
 
2010-04-03 12:52:19 AM  

nicksteel: really?

"March 24, 1997: Ratzinger's deputy, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican's secretary of state, writes to Weakland asking that he proceed against Murphy using the 1962 norms, which dictated how to handle cases of priests soliciting sex in confessional."


Yes, that letter was a direct response to the second letter written on March 10th. The first letter was written in July of 1996. Thanks for one again proving me correct.
 
2010-04-03 12:53:59 AM  

nicksteel: This article, in a Wisconsin paper, is part of a series that covers the events. Yes, I believe this paper, the reporters don't have an axe to grind.


And the NY Times has an axe to grind? Do you know how stupid that sounds.
 
2010-04-03 01:48:45 AM  

redundantman: jehovahs witness protection: redundantman: I suppose we are doomed to eternally endure lousy baseball jokes everytime the Catholic church leadership makes the news?

I hope so.

So how about that local sports team?


Hell, there, Mr. ... brown shoes!
 
2010-04-03 02:16:57 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: trial was not stopped, it was not ordered to be stopped.

Wrong, again

Do you know what abate means? This letter was written Aug. 19th. Murphy died on Sept. 2nd.

The trial was stopped.


I posted comments from the judge in the case. He never received that letter.

God, you are a farking moron of the highest order.
 
2010-04-03 04:39:28 PM  

nicksteel: I posted comments from the judge in the case. He never received that letter.


One one hand, you have documents that show the trial was abated. On the other hand you have the 14 year old self-serving memories of a Ratzinger \ church apologist.

Here's a few other quotes from the trial judge in the article you cite:

To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured

Does shipping abuser priest to other churches so they can abuse again and ignoring request to remove abuser priest from their position count as doing more than any other pope or bishop? Sadly, it most likely does.

Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information.

We know that statements is an outright falsehood.

Finally, over the last 25 years, vigorous action has taken place within the church to avoid harm to children. Potential seminarians receive extensive sexual-psychological evaluation prior to admission. Virtually all seminaries concentrate their efforts on the safe environment for children.

Thousands of victims would argue with this last point.

Yeah, I'll take the documents over this guy anytime.
 
2010-04-03 04:48:13 PM  

nicksteel: I posted comments from the judge in the case. He never received that letter.


Dude, did you pick the wrong horse. This is from the same source you cited.

From here (new window)

Brundage was interviewed across the country, discussing his open letter as a rebuttal to coverage of the sex abuse scandal engulfing the Vatican. It now appears Brundage's account may be significantly flawed.

Brundage (the trial judge) is a lying sack of shiat.

Man, do you ever get tried of failing?
 
2010-04-03 04:54:31 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: I posted comments from the judge in the case. He never received that letter.

One one hand, you have documents that show the trial was abated. On the other hand you have the 14 year old self-serving memories of a Ratzinger \ church apologist.

Here's a few other quotes from the trial judge in the article you cite:

To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured

Does shipping abuser priest to other churches so they can abuse again and ignoring request to remove abuser priest from their position count as doing more than any other pope or bishop? Sadly, it most likely does.

Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information.

We know that statements is an outright falsehood.

Finally, over the last 25 years, vigorous action has taken place within the church to avoid harm to children. Potential seminarians receive extensive sexual-psychological evaluation prior to admission. Virtually all seminaries concentrate their efforts on the safe environment for children.

Thousands of victims would argue with this last point.

Yeah, I'll take the documents over this guy anytime.


Your document does not say that the trial was abated. It says that the judge was instructed (by letter) to do so. Weakland has admitted that he did so by letter. The judge never got it.

I've had enough of your hatred for the Church, your prejudice and above all your stupidity. You want to believe that Ratzinger was guilty of something in this case when he was not. You refuse to believe that having his second in command answer a letter DOES MEAN that Ratzinger responded to the letter. You refuse to accept the fact that Ratzinger was not in a position of authority in cases like this and this his office was not given that authority until 2001. When challenged, you have consistently changed your story. You are why Fark created the ignore list. you just made mine. Now that you are aware that you are on my ignore list, do me a big favor and respond to this post just so everybody can see how dense you are.


Your problem is obvious
theblacksentinel.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2010-04-03 04:57:13 PM  

nicksteel: I posted comments from the judge in the case. He never received that letter.


Not to rub it in, but this is too much fun. Here (new window) is a draft of the letter that Brundage (the trial judge) said he never received. Funny thing, Brundage drafted the letter. Seems I was correct that Brundage's self-serving church apologist memories could not be trusted.

Once again, me correct. Nicky wrong.

Do you see a pattern here?
 
2010-04-03 04:57:22 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: I posted comments from the judge in the case. He never received that letter.

One one hand, you have documents that show the trial was abated. On the other hand you have the 14 year old self-serving memories of a Ratzinger \ church apologist.

Here's a few other quotes from the trial judge in the article you cite:

To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured

Does shipping abuser priest to other churches so they can abuse again and ignoring request to remove abuser priest from their position count as doing more than any other pope or bishop? Sadly, it most likely does.

Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information.

We know that statements is an outright falsehood.

Finally, over the last 25 years, vigorous action has taken place within the church to avoid harm to children. Potential seminarians receive extensive sexual-psychological evaluation prior to admission. Virtually all seminaries concentrate their efforts on the safe environment for children.

Thousands of victims would argue with this last point.

Yeah, I'll take the documents over this guy anytime.


"Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information.

We know that statements is an outright falsehood."

No, you do not KNOW that it is a lie. You think it is a lie.


"Finally, over the last 25 years, vigorous action has taken place within the church to avoid harm to children. Potential seminarians receive extensive sexual-psychological evaluation prior to admission. Virtually all seminaries concentrate their efforts on the safe environment for children.

Thousands of victims would argue with this last point."

Thousands?? Your prejudice is only over shadowed by your stupidity.
 
2010-04-03 05:02:35 PM  

nicksteel: You are why Fark created the ignore list. you just made mine.


I accept your surrender. You're very French like. I don't blame you, after the beating you have received here, I would quit also.
 
2010-04-03 05:33:37 PM  

nicksteel: I've had enough of your hatred for the Church, your prejudice


"The study said that 4,392 clergymen-almost all priests-were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984."

You gawd damn right I hate the church. I hate Scientology and the Peoples Temple also.

nicksteel: ...and above all your stupidity


What does that say about you since I've beat your head in for two days?
 
2010-04-03 05:57:56 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: I've had enough of your hatred for the Church, your prejudice

"The study said that 4,392 clergymen-almost all priests-were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984."

You gawd damn right I hate the church. I hate Scientology and the Peoples Temple also.

nicksteel: ...and above all your stupidity

What does that say about you since I've beat your head in for two days?


I have been observing this argument for a while and I find it fascinating. Your rationalization is rather unique. You believe that statements support your position when they really don't.

For instance, you provided this statement "Finally, over the last 25 years, vigorous action has taken place within the church to avoid harm to children. Potential seminarians receive extensive sexual-psychological evaluation prior to admission. Virtually all seminaries concentrate their efforts on the safe environment for children."


When challenged, you responded with this ""The study said that 4,392 clergymen-almost all priests-were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984."

Twenty five years ago would be 1985. Your statement addresses a period that ends immediately prior to 1985. It does nothing to support your position and yet you somehow believe that it does.

At least you were honest enough to admit your prejudice. Would you be interested in being one of the subjects in a psychological study?

Why are you still responding (twice) to a person who said that he put you on his ignore list? That is not rational. I do hope that you will consent to be in the study. You would be a perfect example.
 
2010-04-03 07:54:08 PM  

chuckufarlie: Why are you still responding (twice) to a person who said that he put you on his ignore list?


Nicky, you small minded nitwit. You already responded to me after you claimed you put me on ignore. Now, you're pulling out an alt?

chuckufarlie: When challenged, you responded with this ""The study said that 4,392 clergymen-almost all priests-were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984."


That was a direct response to my hatred of the church, moron. For the last 50 years the Catholic church has systematically ignored, covered up and denied abuse of thousands of young boys by thousands of priest. That, my dear Nicky, is a fact not even you can argue with.


Damn, it must really suck to be you.
 
2010-04-03 07:56:41 PM  

chuckufarlie: Twenty five years ago would be 1985. Your statement addresses a period that ends immediately prior to 1985.


Again, you are wrong. That study covers the last 50 years. It says 75% happened between 1960 and 1984. Even your alt is an idiot.
 
2010-04-03 08:10:51 PM  

NightOwl2255: chuckufarlie: Twenty five years ago would be 1985. Your statement addresses a period that ends immediately prior to 1985.

Again, you are wrong. That study covers the last 50 years. It says 75% happened between 1960 and 1984. Even your alt is an idiot.


I hate to disappoint, but I am not nicksteel in disguise. What study are you referring to? The first reference I can find says nothing about the study spanning 50 years. Did you ever state that the study spanned 50 years? Does that mean that it covers all of 2010?
 
2010-04-03 08:29:06 PM  

NightOwl2255: nicksteel: I've had enough of your hatred for the Church, your prejudice

"The study said that 4,392 clergymen-almost all priests-were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984."


Nicky, you'll notice, I never made any statement as to the years covered. Once again your small mind inferred something that I did not imply.
 
2010-04-03 08:34:39 PM  

NightOwl2255: NightOwl2255: nicksteel: I've had enough of your hatred for the Church, your prejudice

"The study said that 4,392 clergymen-almost all priests-were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984."

Nicky, you'll notice, I never made any statement as to the years covered. Once again your small mind inferred something that I did not imply.


I am sorry, I thought that you would be able to handle your half of an adult conversation. I already told you that I am not nicksteele.
 
2010-04-03 08:43:49 PM  

NickSteel: I already told you that I am not nicksteele.


And, dear nicky, you said about a dozen other things that are flat out BS. What's your point?
 
Displayed 201 of 201 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report