1985 Document Shows Pope Resisting Pleas To Defrock Pedophile Priest
Tweet
Yet another smoking gun.
The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including ‘the good of the universal church,’ according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.
The correspondence, obtained by The Associated Press, is the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican’s insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church’s doctrinal watchdog office.
116 Responses to “1985 Document Shows Pope Resisting Pleas To Defrock Pedophile Priest”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Joseph’s wingmen think mentioning pedophilia is worse than the act of pedophilia
The good of the universal church is more important to Ratzinger than stopping the molestation of children. How do we know this? Because Ratzinger took the time to translate that precise sentiment from German into Latin for the benefit of an Anglophone U.S. Bishop.
The priest could have been defrocked, and the bishop wanted to do it apparently, but no, Rome insisted otherwise. For the good of the universal church, which somehow would be damaged if a California priest got laicized.
Thats not a smoking gun, thats a receipt for a rifle and bullets and a map of parade routes and book depositories.
Im a lapsed catholic and all i want for xmas is for the vatican to disappear, all regious establishments should fall and religion be made like alcohol- let ppl decide when they come of age, make baptism illegal lol. But its funny seeing all the other spaghetti monster followers act smug, like theres never been a protestant or jewish deviant.
Monsters.
For the record: The “Pope” was not the Pope , he was Cardinal Ratzinger. But never let accuracy stand in the way of a fun story.
The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including ‘the good of the universal church,’ according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.
Or, for Frank DiSalles’ suddenly-discovered fetish for accuracy:
“The man now known to the world as Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest when he was a Cardinal working in the Vatican.”
Is it not enough of a stain that he was a Cardinal at the time and eventually became the Pope. Please tell me what portion of this was dishonest, misleading, or factually inaccurate. This is not to say that all priests are doing this, but this shows that the man that is in charge of the church now had a chance to act in at least one instance and did not act responsibly.
Frank, which portion of this diabolically ugly and morally corrupt nightmare within the church wouldn’t you render an excuse for?
Well AT LEAST he didn’t somehow blame the Democrats for this! Gotta give him credit for that.
There is a problem IN the Church; not WITH the Church. There is absolutely nothing in Catholic Church dogma that condones what these priests have done. I am at a loss to explain why these priests cannot be removed to an environment where there are no children, or supervised when they are in contact with children.
You do realize that all Catholics , and all freedom loving people, IMHO , should fear any attack on a religion, for whatever reason.
As Muslims around the world rape and kill innocents in the name of Allah, and the Islamic community stands by virtually silent, you admonish others not to blame all Muslims for the crimes of a few. I hear no outcry to bring down the terror-teaching Mosques , some of which exist here in this country. I hear no cry to hang the Imams and Ayatollahs that call for the death of the Great Satan.
The hypocrisy is palpable , and Catholics have every reason to fear a return of anti-Catholic sentiment, called by Arthur Schlesinger, “America’s oldest prejudice.”
But, let me repeat, I do not condone or excuse the molestation of children. I do believe that the Church sought a theological solution to this problem — spiritual counseling, soul searching, and repentance — and it failed.
Further, the Church failed to recognize, when it was discovered , that the chance of rehabilitating a child abuser is next to zero, and should have immediately moved every priest suspected of molesting a child , away from children, and then begun investigations.
That this was not done , is not, to me , any indication that the Church is inherently evil, or that there is an inherent evil in Catholicism.
Finally, if it were to be found (and I am saying this for the SECOND time), that there “cover – ups” in the usual sense of the word, then whatever action is warranted in those cases should be taken , whether it involves the clergy or a layman.
There is a problem IN the Church; not WITH the Church.
That’s debatable.
I am at a loss to explain why these priests cannot be removed to an environment where there are no children, or supervised when they are in contact with children.
Because they should be in jail.
You do realize that all Catholics , and all freedom loving people, IMHO , should fear any attack on a religion, for whatever reason.
Disagree. I attack all religions equally, and that I do that is precisely because I value freedom – freedom of the mind. Here’s a quote for you: “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
As Muslims around the world rape and kill innocents in the name of Allah, and the Islamic community stands by virtually silent,
But no one is morally superior to anyone else, right Frank? Right?
you admonish others not to blame all Muslims for the crimes of a few. I hear no outcry to bring down the terror-teaching Mosques , some of which exist here in this country. I hear no cry to hang the Imams and Ayatollahs that call for the death of the Great Satan.
Frank, those people who aid and abet terrorism should be brought to justice. Muslims who commit terror acts, financially support terror acts, or plan terrorist activities should be throw in prison forever. No one here will argue otherwise, and I’m pretty sure has argued this very same point I make now. Catholic priests that have molested children should be thrown in prison as well.
It’s not that fucking hard.
But, let me repeat, I do not condone or excuse the molestation of children. I do believe that the Church sought a theological solution to this problem — spiritual counseling, soul searching, and repentance — and it failed.
You just make excuses for child molesters and for those who shelter child molesters. Yeah. That’s not condoning or excusing it at all. Good point. “A theological solution”… fuck you, Frank. The Catholic Church does not get to decide to ignore the laws of the land – they can’t decide for themselves to ignore the fact that child rape is evil, wrong, and against the law. They have no right to decide for themselves that child rapists shouldn’t be thrown into jail, and instead should “repent” for their transgressions and let bygones be bygones. No right to do that whatsoever. Fuck you, and fuck the Catholic Church’s complicity in child rape.
That this was not done , is not, to me , any indication that the Church is inherently evil, or that there is an inherent evil in Catholicism.
No, just in the practitioners and leaders of the church.
How is it that virtually everything that you ever write is either wrong, fallacious, or just downright morally repugnant?
Maybe Frank is right. If the Shoes of the Fisherman are protecting the hands in the knickers, maybe the voices of the Prophet also ignore the bombs in the knickers. Are the underpants the problem and not the big religions, or do we need new shoes and new voices?
But, let me repeat, I do not condone or excuse the molestation of children. I do believe that the Church sought a theological solution to this problem — spiritual counseling, soul searching, and repentance — and it failed.
That “infallibility” thing is a bitch to maintain. As Yogi Berra explained far more succinctly than I ever could, “In theory, theory is the same as practice. In practice, it isn’t.”
Further, the Church failed to recognize, when it was discovered , that the chance of rehabilitating a child abuser is next to zero.
How many times in roughly 1500 years would something have to happen before you start noticing a pattern? You would think that records of such things were kept.
whatever action is warranted in those cases should be taken , whether it involves the clergy or a layman.
I’m not sure I understand what sort of “action is warranted” when the “clergy” is now the Pope. What measures would you consider appropriate, IF AND ONLY IF, this reaches Ratzinger?
First of all , there is absolutely no way that the Pope is solely responsible – that is ridiculous , even if you are referring to him in is role as Cardinal.
It means what it means: Whatever might be taken against the offending individuals , WHOEVER THEY ARE – should be taken. Is there something unclear about that? Or are we back to the abortion issue, where I am expected to dream up sentences for people who haven’t been tried?
Now to Herr mambo:
Because they should be in jail.
Of course, you meant to say, “They should be in jail after they are convicted of a crime in a court of law,” right, mambo? Right?
Until then , I believe they should be removed from any contact with children, or supervised when they are with children. You find that objectionable, mambo, do you? Do you?
Disagree. I attack all religions equally.
a) No one gives a sh*t if YOU attack religion – you are just a dope with a big mouth.
b) I meant attacked on a grand scale, or attacked on an institutional level. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution says that, doesn’t it, Mambo? Doesn’t it?
c) And the fact that you hate all religions , does not effect their efficacy in the slightest. But it does, therefore, include the fact that you hate the Catholic Church, does it not, Mambo? Doesn’t it, Mambo?
But no one is morally superior to anyone else, right Frank? Right?
Whether or not A commits a worse crime, or crimes than B, in no way indicates that A is more or less “moral” than B. Morality is not assessed by bean counting, is it , Mambo? Is it?
Frank, those people who aid and abet terrorism should be brought to justice.
How terribly right wing of you.
Muslims who commit terror acts, financially support terror acts, or plan terrorist activities should be throw in prison forever.
Of course, you meant after they are charged, tried and convicted, right, Mambo? Right?
No one here will argue otherwise
Debatable – precisely because no one has ever argued that “very point you are trying to make now.”
fuck you, Frank. Fuck you
An indispensable item in the mambochicken rhetorical repertoire, right, mambo? Right?
No, just in the practitioners and leaders of the church.
Of course, you meant after an investigation discloses that they are guilty of a crime.
How is it that
virtuallyeverything that you ever write is a vicious, obscenity – laden screed of half-truths, characterized by illogical, wild-eyed hysterical irrelevant detail, delivered with a facade of certainty, that leads me to believe that you have at best a closed mind, or at worst, that you are clinically insane ?Whatever might be taken against the offending individuals , WHOEVER THEY ARE – should be taken. Is there something unclear about that?
Yes. What is “unclear” is the NATURE of the action taken, if it is to be against Ratzinger. If he participated in a cover-up, what SPECIFICALLY should be done to him, and by whom?
Pointing out Ratzingter’s “participation” in a cover-up is not an accusation of sole responsibility. The getaway driver gets charged with the bank robbery even if he didn’t go inside. If Ratzinger drove the metaphoric getaway car, what should happen to him?
Ben it ain’t the deviant, it’s the massive smug and pompous cover-up. Many Protestants and almost all religious Jews belong to congregations with so-called congregational polity, i.e. the buck stops with that synagogue or church house. It’s what the bishops are doing, not the pedophiles, that drives this story.
Is that all you have left, Frank? No capacity for shame?
Ratzinger was next in line to become Pope, he had damn near unchecked licensed from the Pope to run that Congregation as his own pocket committee for years, decades even, and he is indeed the Pope now. His Vatican has denied any involved by the current Pope in prior cover-ups; he is now busted as the amoral company man that he indeed was his entire adult life, and as observers could easily have judged him to be as early as 1990.
I’d say Frank’s a little butt-hurt but that would be in poor taste in this context.
Are you really saying that the pope shielded pedophiles? Oliver, I don’t want to hear that BS. Everyone knows that the pope is one of the good guys. Everyone. Quit it with this BS.
I believe “Did the Pope shield pedophiles?” is, in fact, the 64,000 dollar question here. If he did, even in the context of a flawed understanding of the nature of sex offenders, he at the very least is badly compromised, and if he did so after the nature of sex offenders was pretty clear(i.e., by the mid-80s, as this letter indicates), then he should be “toast”, cop to it and resign, along with a couple dozen other high level bishops and cardinals involved in what amounts to a de facto cover up of widespread child sexual abuse.
At the very least he’s got some ‘splaining to do…
“Or are we back to the abortion issue, where I am expected to dream up sentences for people who haven’t been tried?”. Re: that particular discussion, I’m not bothering to post a link to the relevant thread from a few weeks ago, but damn, Frank, you’re capacity for intellectual dishonesty is something to behold…
Then there’s this:
Well Put!
We should also put the Pope on trial for telling uneducated Africans that condoms give you Aids. I don’t care how you look at that, that’s genocide.
-GG
Frank, your arguments are exactly why these priests should be in jail! They represent the Church, they are supposed to represent the Christ here on earth (the Pope) and you want to give them a pass. Why Frank? Seriously, if someone sexually abuses a child, a teacher, a neighbor, an uncle, an aunt, a mother, a father, what do you think should happen to them? Why are you protecting a predator? And they just sent to live in another neighborhood, and supervised! Besides you’re contradicting yourself by saying that “they haven’t been convicted of a crime,” but then state that they should “be removed from children and supervised,” is telling indeed. Why remove them if you think that they are innocent, and if they are not innocent, why not prosecute them?
Frank, as a good Catholic you shouldn’t make excuses for them and particulary for the Pope. If you love the Church, love the theology of Catholicism, then you above all people should want them gone! Clean house, let the Spirit in, Amen!
Frank, the priest himself asked to be defrocked, as did his bishop. He was convicted in a secular court of multiple sexual felonies involving children. In his letter of response, Ratzinger cited the youth of the criminal priest and the image problems it would create as reasons to keep him in The Church.
Of course that letter was not meant to be seen by people like us, but perhaps you could give us your best guess why a felony conviction and the desire of the convicted priest were not enough to get him defrocked.
Because, you don’t get defrocked just because you ask for it. Being defrocked isn’t like taking off your Mickey Dee’s uniform and hitchhiking to Colorado.
Secondly, maybe I misread the sequence , but he was arrested and convicted long AFTER he asked to leave the priesthood. And, as was pointed out in two places, it was not up to Cardinal Ratzinger to make the decision.
Third, I am not asking anyone to convert to Catholicism or anything, but could you get some rough idea of what’s going on, before you talk about the Pope’s resigning, and priests being defrocked?
I have been looking into the parts I don’t understand – why can’t you?
Oh, wait! It’s obvious why you don’t want to look into this, and why you are satisfied with only one side of the story. Isn’t it?
First, Frank, you say:
“You do realize that all Catholics , and all freedom loving people, IMHO , should fear any attack on a religion, for whatever reason.”
Then, the very next sentence, you say:
“As Muslims around the world rape and kill innocents in the name of Allah, and the Islamic community stands by virtually silent, you admonish others not to blame all Muslims for the crimes of a few. I hear no outcry to bring down the terror-teaching Mosques , some of which exist here in this country. I hear no cry to hang the Imams and Ayatollahs that call for the death of the Great Satan.”
So it seems this “fearing an attack on religion” doesn’t apply to Muslims, then? And you wonder why we call you a bigot?
But, let me repeat, I do not condone or excuse the molestation of children.
Of course not, you just condone and excuse child molesters. Big difference.
That this was not done , is not, to me , any indication that the Church is inherently evil, or that there is an inherent evil in Catholicism.
So protecting child molesters isn’t evil?
Finally, if it were to be found (and I am saying this for the SECOND time), that there “cover – ups” in the usual sense of the word, then whatever action is warranted in those cases should be taken , whether it involves the clergy or a layman.
So covering up child molestation isn’t a “cover up”? Do you even know what the words you say mean anymore?
First of all , there is absolutely no way that the Pope is solely responsible – that is ridiculous , even if you are referring to him in is role as Cardinal.
He’s the head of the Catholic Church, of course he’s responsible. Is the captain not responsible for his crew?
Frank, let me ask you something. If your son was molested by a teacher, and not only did you find this out, but the school was hiding evidence of such, how would you feel?
Frank, truly how is this hard? This is what is going on.
Ratzinger is the head of the Catholic church. He was chosen to be the high MORAL authority of a church of almost a billion and a half people. It has been proven that before he was Pope he chose protecting the church’s name over protecting the church’s children–the future. Which means they truly screwed that pooch in picking the man in the first place. His minions have blamed the media, gays and anyone they could to try to deflect their complicity in hiding pedophile priests. ALL are complicit — from the Pope right on down to the Parish priests who may have know what was happening and did nothing about it.
No amount of church doctrine, or who has the right to defrock a priest, or if people are screaming about Muslims or whether you think people are attacking the Catholic church matters. If you say you are a man of faith and truly know the difference between right and wrong–this should be easy for you.
Parents put their children in the hands of priests.
Children were raped by some of those priests.
The church hierarchy knew about it.
They covered it up.
Children’s lives were ruined.
My question to you is if a government official (in this administration) had knowledge that subordinates were committing crimes against children and he helped to cover it up–would you be hemming
and hawing about this? You’d say–throw the bum out, arrest him. Hell Frank, you want them to toss out
Michael Steele for base incompetence, yet you don’t seem to carry your indignation over to men who
are supposed to be the moral centers of your church—not hide pedophiles in case the church gets bad press.
This is simple. Now separate your faith from these criminals and stop being an apologists for these
creeps.
Sigh.
“Frank, let me ask you something. If your son was molested by a teacher, and not only did you find this out, but the school was hiding evidence of such, how would you feel?”
Remind me again,
Why are we anthropomorphizing Frank?
Sigh all you want. Nothing has been proven . Every single purported “revelation”, has been shown to have another side .
eslpi, you pinhead… Just because your bullshit dialogue didn’t trap me into anything, because you just weren’t good enough, you’re gonna say I’m not human?
feh
And now for the idiot bastard’s son:
Zython:
So it seems this “fearing an attack on religion” doesn’t apply to Muslims, then? And you wonder why we call you a bigot?
No, I don’t wonder why YOU call me a bigot (you are not the Ambassador from Ollieland) YOU call me a bigot, because you’re a sniveling coward, who can do it without consequence. If I was standing in front of you right now, you would peeing in your pants , and praying to whatever RPG god you believe in that I wouldn’t kill you.
What I said was that none of you complains about Muslims being virtually silent, while they kill people all over the world. Quite a difference from MY condoning an attack on their religion. But your too bloody stupid to know the difference.
Of course not, you just condone and excuse child molesters. Big difference.
And you are a dumbass, who isn’t smart to know it.
So protecting child molesters isn’t evil?
If you believe the Catholic Church is inherently evil, then you believe that a;; Catholics are inherently evil, and that makes YOU a fucking bigot.
So covering up child molestation isn’t a “cover up”? Do you even know what the words you say mean anymore?
I said it had to be “found” that there was a cover up … Do you know what “found” means ? It doesn’t mean that baby Jonathan believes it’s true – it means that a reasonable person on a jury can be convinced in a trial that it is true. I don’t mean “found” as you were found – under a rock.
First of all , there is absolutely no way that the Pope is solely responsible – that is ridiculous , even if you are referring to him in is role as Cardinal.
He’s the head of the Catholic Church, of course he’s responsible. Is the captain not responsible for his crew?
If you don’t know the meaning of the word “solely,” let me help you :
sole·ly
1 : without another : singly
2 : to the exclusion of all else
For example , you are solely responsible for every word you type, and every stupid idea you have. The Pope, on the other hand is not solely responsible for acts committed by priests, bishops and cardinals all over the world. That shouldn’t even make sense , but you seem to be devolving. In a few years, you’ll be drooling into your Maypo.
If your son was molested by a teacher, and not only did you find this out, but the school was hiding evidence of such, how would you feel?
I would feel like kicking your ass, for suggesting such a hypothetical, you scum sucking little twit.
Now, would you like to know how I REALLY feel about you?
Let me ask you something, Jonathan: If you were molested by a teacher, a big hairy bruiser of a guy, and he fucked you right in the ass, would you bring him flowers or candy afterward?
If you don’t know the meaning of the word “solely,” let me help you :
So you did say that. But let me ask you, who said he should be the only one? I, for one, am saying that if the Pope has protected, or is protecting, child molesters, he should face the consequences.
If I was standing in front of you right now, you would peeing in your pants , and praying to whatever RPG god you believe in that I wouldn’t kill you.
Narcissism at its finest. And would that be admission that you are, in fact, crazy enough to kill someone?
I would feel like kicking your ass, for suggesting such a hypothetical, you scum sucking little twit.
Yeah, well, it isn’t a hypothetical for parents of children abused by priests.
Let me ask you something, Jonathan: If you were molested by a teacher, a big hairy bruiser of a guy, and he fucked you right in the ass, would you bring him flowers or candy afterward?
1. Who the hell is Johnathan?
2. You have quite the imagination…
3. What the hell is this hypothetical supposed to prove.
I’d go on, but it’s obvious that you’re drunk and violent right now. Maybe we can continue this discussion after your hangover.
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest” – Denis Diderot
Poor, pitiful, desperate, flailing, deluded, angry, frightened Frank. You seem unhinged.
Of course you will HATE that I feel sorry for you–but I do, I really do..
Maureen Dowd had a good take on the issue today:
I will no no longer defend the Catholic Church , the Pope, or any bishops and priests.
You may proceed with whatever you consider yourself to be doing. Since you are not attacking the Church or its beliefs, you claim, I have nothing to defend. Carry on.
Narcissism at its finest. And would that be admission that you are, in fact, crazy enough to kill someone?
No, it is a statement that YOU would fear for your life, because you are a coward, hiding behind a keyboard, miles away.
I refer you to the comment of CDWard for further details.
Since you are not attacking the Church or its beliefs, you claim, I have nothing to defend. Carry on.
We’re attacking the Church policy of moving child molesters around instead of delivering them to the civil authorities, you know, “rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars”, and allowing them to both sin and break the law again as well wherever they end up.
With defenders like you, Frank DiSalle, they don’t need any enemies.
We’re attacking the Church policy of moving child molesters around instead of delivering them to the civil authorities
Oh, really? That’s all?
How does one “deliver them to the civil authorities?” Parcel Post?
How does one “deliver them to the civil authorities?” Parcel Post?
In my town you dial 911 and the civil authorities come to wherever you called from. It works 24/7. You don’t need an appointment. A child could do it.
Out of curiosity, how would YOU call for police, since you apparently didn’t know about dialing 911?
“How does one “deliver them to the civil authorities?” Parcel Post?”
Step 1. dial 911
Step 2. “I would like to report a case of child rape”
It is just like Fedex, you let them know you have a package (clild rapist) and they come and pick it up for you.
So simple even a CEO (or a lying troll) can do it.
Looks like some courts in Colombia don’t care to see child molestation and sexual abuse as some internal matter of the Catholic church:
Frank, we all know that it’s Catholic doctrine that the Church is the mystical Body of Christ and as such is incapable of imperfection or fallibility. But to those of us who make conclusions based on observations and common sense, not on doctrine, we conclude that you are what you repeatedly do, not on whatever cloak of sanctimony you don. “By their fruits you shall know them” and this has been a very bitter and strange crop, indeed.
The Catholic Church in multiple countries and continents has been doing the same damn thing repeatedly – putting PR and ass-covering and face-saving ahead of the welfare of children, at the risk of financial bankrtupcy often and moral bankruptcy everywhere. This perversion of basic decency, basic morality, is consistent with the DSM definition of sociopathic personality disorder. And it’s not renegade one-off loser bishops or liberal wack-jobs in the episcopate that have committed this aiding and abetting, but the likes of the undoubtedly orthodox and fanatically micromanaging Ratzinger himself.
Put another way: the sexual morality of outspoken gay activist and sex columnist Dan Savage is far preferable to that of the Pope, as Savage condemns, not coddles, collar-wearing predators against children.
If I taught the Abnormal Psychology class at my university I would definitely lift Frank’s commentary in this thread for one of my lectures.
El Cid, this sort of jumped out at me:
‘Amaya added that the disgraced priest would “accept and respect the decision of the justice system.”’
How . . nice. As opposed to flying Air Pontiff to a prolonged, indeed perpetual, retreat somewhere within the Vatican?
Now, Frank, this is what we (the hateful Catholic-bashers) would like to see. Accused priests tried in court, under the same rules as any ‘civilian’, and, if found guilty, sent to prison. If found not guilty, released. This is what is not happening, and it is not happening because ‘the Church’ does not WANT it to happen. It would, apparently, rather pay out settlements to prevent accusations from proceeding to trial.
It would, based on the Boston precedents, rather sell the churches and schools out from ‘underperforming’ parishes than see accused priests in court, facing their accusers.
This is what upsets us, Frank.
There’s always this.
Oh, and BTW, your phone has the digits “9″ and “1″ on it , I presume?
Call the police and report to them that you want the Pope arrested for allowing children to be raped.
I can assure you they will come right away. The medical personnel who accompany them will no doubt be kind and compassionate.
Perhaps you can ameliorate your outrage by moving to Colombia. Why don’t you try it, and see if you feel any better…
Buh bye !
If anyone needs help educating people, mambo, it’s you. If I can be of assistance, feel free to ask.
…says the guy who twice wrote that 42 is “not even a doubling” of 15.
Ha. Good one, Frank.
Well, Robert, since you claim to speak for everyone, I will respond to everyone at once:
If you are willing to wait until the alleged perpetrators are tried and found guilty, then I agree with you.
I also have added that they should be removed from all contact with children, while the cases are investigated and adjudicated. This idea seems to present you all with some difficulty, as not one of you has said “Yes, that’s a good idea, Frank!” Perhaps that is because you are so anxious to “get the Pope.” I may be wrong. Tell me why you hesitate to say that it would be good to remove the priests.
Or are you saying, “We’re not going to say that’s a good idea , until you agree with us that we should hang the Pope.”
In other words, your motives are suspect. I, at least, am capable of admitting that I am at a loss to explain the Church’s actions. You all, on the other hand , are perfectly willing to call for punishing people who have not even been charged with anything, let alone convicted.
Potential Pope protects pedo priests.
Film at 11.
How can we miss you if you don’t go away, Frank?
Also, should molesters be treated as this one in Columbia was or as the Church treated them in this country until fairly recently?
I’d rather ameliorate my outrage by convincing those such as you, who appear to much more favor Catholic hierarchy fetishism than a functional system of keeping Catholic priests from raping children, to move to somewhere where your priorities may be better served — I dunno, that floating garbage pile in the Pacific, perhaps.
Frank, the article you link basically says “in 1985 Ratzinger didn’t want to be too hasty in deciding whether a man who pled no contest to tying up boys and molesting them ought to remain in the priesthood.” The author of the article says that as if it exonerates Ratzinger. I, for one, dissent from that view.
If you are willing to wait until the alleged perpetrators are tried and found guilty, then I agree with you.
Shall I translate that into left wing?
Let’s let the cases languish in the Courts, with numerous delaying motions, and deliberate strategies designed to evoke sympathy for the defendants, until they receive absurdly lenient sentences, or get set free, and then we can put this sordid mess behind us, because it is no longer damaging the Church, and we don’t give a flying fuck about the children, anyway.
OR
We can make sure the accused priests are not near any children, so we know the children are safe. Then we can investigate these cases, attempt to adjudicate them , and pay attention to THESE CASES (and take our eyes off the “white hatted prize”), and see to it that these predators are punished appropriately.
THEN , if it can be proven that any other people contributed to the abuse by acting , or failing to act, appropriate action can be taken against those offenders.
Let’s get off the “Hang ‘em, then investigate!” train, shall we?
For one? Wilbur, you are in the company of people who are hot on the trail of the Pope.
Just think of it! “We got the Pope to resign! Woohoo!”
There is only one thing about this sorry episode we should be interested in: Which one of the countless thousands of abused children – victims of a organized pedophile church – gets to keep the roof of the Sistine Chapel when they break up their soiled Evil Empire to pay their victims.
It’s fine with me if he keeps his job, Frank, so long as we’re agreed that any pretense he ever had to being some kind of a moral lodestone is out the window.
The people who feel this way overlap non-trivially with the people who think that pointing out blatant racism is a racist act.
You’re full of crap, Mambo, and you’re a dope with a big mouth.
I don’t even use that kind of language. You are so pissed off that you got shown up , that you are making shit up.
What a child !
when they break up their soiled Evil Empire to pay their victims.
No anti – Catholic sentiment there.
so long as we’re agreed that any pretense he ever had to being some kind of a moral lodestone is out the window.
No anti – Catholic sentiment there.
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest” – Denis Diderot
No anti-Catholic sentiment there – well, maybe a little.
Last words . . . .
As far as I’m concerned I could give a good goddamn whether the religion of these people were Protestant, Buddhist, or snake carrying Pentecostals. The hierarchy of a church has perpetuated a systematic cover-up of child rape. Again–it should have nothing to do with your faith in god, Frank.
I can only speak for myself about whether people are attacking the Catholic FAITH. I’m not. That seems to be your problem. You cannot separate your faith in god from the machinations of a bunch of men who have done the wrong thing administrating your church. I believe the people who post here would bash the hell out of the aforementioned religious institutions if the same situations came to light.
And Frank, it’s a bit silly as a member of a religion with over a billion people still in it to fear what you deem as an attack. It’s like Bill Oreilly screeching about a war on Christmas when Christians are the dominant religion in this country. I think the Catholic church will survive.
I’m anti-Catholic. There, I said it.
Raping children is wrong. Covering up those rapes is wrong.
As an atheist, I’m not at all a moral relativist. Like, say, the current Pope.
so long as we’re agreed that any pretense he ever had to being some kind of a moral lodestone is out the window.
No anti – Catholic sentiment there.
That’s correct, there is no anti-Catholic sentiment there. Plenty of anti-hypocritical-overdressed-bag-of-sanctimony-who-gives-cover-to-pedophiles sentiment, however.
Excuse me – did I say I fear an attack ?
I did not.
Let me say this again. If the Priests who are accused are found guilty they should be punished.
If there are Church officials who deliberately covered it up, and tried to keep those Priests from being prosecuted , then they should be punished.
What is going on now is little more than a witch hunt composed of lies, half truths, and baseless assumptions. Every “smoking gun” turns out to be firing blanks.
Do I fear an attack on the Church by anencephalic delinquents such as jaim or mambochicken? Hardly. The Church has survived Attila , Luther, Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Mussolini. It will surely survive this.
But the rank hypocrisy, and faux outrage, stinks to high Heaven.
In 2006, 135,000 children were reported as victims of sexual abuse. If 1,000 of them ( a hugely inflated number ) were assaulted by Priests, that’s slightly more than 2% of that number.
So, because there is a possibility – a possibility, mind you – that perhaps less than 2 out of 100 children were sexually assaulted by priests,you are all figuratively gathered around the Vatican with torches, axe handles and pitchforks.
So stop telling me I am “defending” them, when I am not; stop telling me they “should be in jail,” when they haven’t even been charged with anything, let alone found guilty; and stop telling me heads should roll in the Vatican, when every story you present is in fact an exaggerated, distorted picture of what really transpired. No one who has been charged and found guilty has escaped punishment.
I keep insisting that the accused Priests be removed from contact with children while investigations take place but for some reason, known only to you and God, I cannot find one person who agrees that this is a good idea. Can you blame me for believing that you are more concerned with hurting the Church, than you are with helping children?
Yes, Wilbur, and if anybody is an expert on hypocritical sanctimony, it’s you. As I have demonstrated on several occasions, the “evidence” that the Pope is immoral is woefully lacking in substance.
Now, if you choose not to take counsel from the Pope or the Church, I don’t care, and I am betting that the Pope is not overly concerned about your opinion , either.
But, if you think that a billion Catholics are suddenly going to switch allegiance , like the Independents that will vote for Nobama in 2012, that is self-righteous, sanctimonious hypocrisy crystallized and packed for shipping.
Frank, in his own words…
Actually, an increase from 15 to 42 is on increase of 27.
27/15 = 1.8. meaning that the amount of threats has not even doubled , and the “300%” is meaningless.
And the second quote…
They increased by 27 from 15. That means that there were less than twice as many. What school did you go to?
Yep, that’s me making shit up. Ha, good one, Frank!
The Catholic Church leadership of course deserves the same, measured response to deal with charges internally as was extended to ACORN, where, although no one argued that they protected and enabled child rapist for decades, there were 2 white kids who claimed they had a troubling videotapes.
Had the desires of the crazy impulsives been followed, there would have been calls to stop ACORN from receiving any government funds or protections, or to investigate the entire organization for criminal activity, or to simply be disbanded.
And since none of that happened to ACORN, and they were allowed to process these unproven charges internally, we owe no less to the international religious organization charged with decades of enabling and protecting child abusers and child rapists.
I keep insisting that the accused Priests be removed from contact with children while investigations take place but for some reason, known only to you and God, I cannot find one person who agrees that this is a good idea.
I think we all agree on that. Your problem is with Ratzinger, who didn’t. The investigation by civil authorities HAD ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED, resulting in a criminal conviction. And then for FOUR YEARS, Ratzinger dithered and threw out bureaucratic roadblocks.
A priest has been convicted of a violent sex crime. He and his bishop BEG for him to be defrocked, and are refused. What is the priesthood, a prison sentence with no possibility of parole? It looks to me like it’s harder to get out of the priesthood than it is to get out of the Army. If you tell the Army you have committed violent crimes, they get rid of you in a heartbeat.
I have asked several times in vain, if the rot goes all the way to Benedict, what is the appropriate means of punishment for a sitting Pope?
Yes, Wilbur, and if anybody is an expert on hypocritical sanctimony, it’s you.
Indeed. If I weren’t pretty good at picking it out after reading dozens of your posts, there’d be something wrong with me.
Frank, there could be a video of Ratzinger bending a naked altar boy over a church pew, and you would still think that the evidence was woefully lacking in substance. The Pope could give a press conference in which he states, “Yes, I enjoy fucking underage boys. Your point? I’m the mothafuckin’ vicar of Christ, bitchezzz!” And all you’d do is defend him like the pathetic, superstitious old man you are.
But, if you think that a billion Catholics are suddenly going to switch allegiance , like the Independents that will vote for Nobama in 2012, that is self-righteous, sanctimonious hypocrisy crystallized and packed for shipping.
1. If Catholics were smart, they would abandon the Church. Too bad most of them probably won’t.
2. Nobama? *rolls eyes* Aren’t we past that yet? It’s not 2008 anymore, Frank.
3. I’m beginning to think that no conservatives on this board actually know that words have meaning. Do you know what “sanctimonious” or “hypocrisy” means, Frank?
El Cid, I am fairly certain you are the only person in this Solar System , who thinks that the ACORN situation bears any resemblance to what is going on with the Church.
Mambo, you take up a lot of time and pixels to insult me; that’s why I call you a dope with a big mouth. This time, you didn’t even pretend you had anything substantive to say.
Frank, you wrote:
“I keep insisting that the accused Priests be removed from contact with children while investigations take place but for some reason, known only to you and God, I cannot find one person who agrees that this is a good idea”
I would point out that, _even within the Church itself_, you cannot find one person (in authority) who thought that was a good idea. The evidence? Accused priests, rather than being removed from contact with children and investigated, were . . . not.
Bishops, archbishops, Cardinals – they could have done that.
They did not.
… other than pointing out that you don’t know the meaning of simple English words. I guess that’s not substantive enough for you.
I don’t know what solar system you inhabit, but it is often the point of words to suggest ideas that otherwise might have gone unthought.
This may involve new words not present in, or appearing in different combinations than, thousand year old liturgies, but this still makes them comprehensible to beings inhabiting a certain planet of this solar system.
I would not compare ACORN directly to the Catholic Church situation, since ACORN is a decent and helpful organization not riddled with charges of systematic, inherent, and enabled child abuse and rape. So for any who take offense that I would compare the good ACORN organization to a criminal conspiracy to encourage pedophiles and child rapists, I apologize.
Robert, they don’t let me run things over there .
And, are you sure that NO priests were ever moved away from children?
Is your point that it is not a good idea, because it hasn’t been done yet?
I want you to say it after me : Move – the – priests – away – from – the – children.
Now, see? That wasn’t difficult, was it?
Or is just too difficult to agree with me about ANYTHING?
That was moderately clever, El Cid. Too bad you evaded the point entirely. Why even bother to compare ACORN to the Catholic Church if they are not remotely alike?
You might as well compare the Catholic Church to AJ’s Burgers , or ACORN to the Santa Clara Police Department.
Other than asking me if I knew the meaning of two English words, you are correct – you had nothing to say. A pattern which you strive mightily not to disturb.
“I know you are, but what am I?”
Thanks for the insight, Pee Wee.
I have no idea , Repack. Back to you – what do you think we should do, based on the fact that he might be guilty of something, we know not what, to a degree, we don’t know, with a degree of prior knowledge we have yet to ascertain, and motives we have yet to determine?
Hanging?
Guillotine?
Firing Squad?
You have become a stubborn dope with a big mouth .
Is 27 twice 15? Nope.
Dope.
It’s hard to reply with reason when you are attempting to make an absolutely non-sensical point.
The point is that to anyone other than a Catholic fundamentalist, the Catholic Church is no more than a legally recognized corporation, a religious corporation, but in its form and activities a coherent and analyzable institution with policies.
The parallel to ACORN, faux-cute idiot, is that ACORN is also an institution, taking the legal form of a non-profit corporation.
The question generally being raised — and obvious to anyone not really, really straining to loudly be heard announcing pure, unadulterated willing ignorance as yourself — is that for me, the relevant level of analysis of the actors and the reaction to them by wider society is that of institutions.
So, I was emphasizing that for some hypocritical and crazy people, the Catholic Church as a hierarchical institution must be viewed & treated in its criminal conspiracies to encourage and protect child molestation as a “religious” institution, as though it made the Church different than the hirings and employment activities (including the enabling of and protection of child abusers and child rapists) of the Salvation Army, or the Red Cross, or Exxon, or Halliburton, or the Cincinnati Bengals, or ACORN,
So, yes, the Catholic Church situation can in many ways be compared to what happened to ACORN.
You can keep playing stupid if you like, but don’t ask the question again, because I’m not going to waste time on your bullshit “Gosh, I just don’t understand how you can compare two things which are different!” routine.
See, Frank? This is a time when you are justifiably called an idiot. You were saying that threats hadn’t even doubled, when in fact they more than doubled. An increase from 15 to 42 is, in fact, nearly a tripling of threats.
A second-grader with Down Syndrome would fare better on a simple math test than you. Jeez.
Vatican To Bishops: Follow Law, Report Sex Abuse
Game over .
You’re insane. You think that the Vatican calling for its leadership to obey the law is some sort of game-changing act? This is ludicrous.
Again, I can imagine some other organization or institution having encouraged and enabled felonies for decades expecting to be admired because the chief executive says “Hey y’all, y’all ought to obey the law & stuff,” and weirdos like you will go squeal at how it’s now “game over”.
Frank DiSalle: Because, you don’t get defrocked just because you ask for it.
Waitaminit. I thought we were talking about the Catholic Church, not some Koresh-type religious sect.
They can force you to remain a priest against your will?
Frank, I do agree with you that accused priests should be kept away from children during the investigation, and that an investigation should take place.
Given the preponderance of evidence that the Church’s officials have historically (over the last fifty years, at least) not followed this procedure, indeed have emphatically defended not following this procedure, are you willing to concede that some – SOME – legitimate criticism of the Church leadership’s culpability in this regard is appropriate?
(Please note that this is not Know-Nothing code for ‘hang the Pope’.)
Frank DiSally: If I was standing in front of you right now, you would peeing in your pants , and praying to whatever RPG god you believe in that I wouldn’t kill you.
Oh, please. Don’t start that again, Frank. Nobody is scared of you and you’ll only make yourself look bad all over again.
Frank DiSalle: Third, I am not asking anyone to convert to Catholicism or anything, but could you get some rough idea of what’s going on, before you talk about the Pope’s resigning, and priests being defrocked?
I have been looking into the parts I don’t understand – why can’t you?
Oh, wait! It’s obvious why you don’t want to look into this, and why you are satisfied with only one side of the story. Isn’t it?
Not at all. I (and not just I) have asked for explanations about the workings of something you claim to be more familiar with, and for clarifications of the views that you, as a clearly devout Catholic, have expressed. And for the most part you’ve chosen not to answer or to dismiss the question. (Often in language that would certainly make the priests and nuns I schooled with blush and reach for a ruler.)
I have no idea , Repack
Frank, if you are going to defer to my judgment, I am flattered. In response then, I think any practice approved by the infallible Pope for use during the Inquisition would obviously be within the Church’s moral framework for punishing Pope Benedict.
As I understand it, the three primary processes were the rack, being hung by one’s wrists with the hands tied behind the back, and our new/old favorite, waterboarding.
Since you have offered me the option of deciding what means of questioning is appropriate, I will allow you to select any of these three. Fair enough?
Frank DiSalle: And, are you sure that NO priests were ever moved away from children?
OK, let’s say some were. So what? How does that change the fact (Yes, fact.) clearly shown over and over again that they did not do so in all cases. In fact, that they regularly and repeatedly for decades covered up for and hid child rapists.
What is your level of tolerance, Frank? 100 cases covered up are excusable because in 1 instance they moved a priest away from kids? 1,000?
Mine is at 0. If they covered up for even 1 priest that’s too many. How many would you allow them to cover up for?
Yeah, Wilbur, don’t go treading on Frank’s turf.
Mine is at 0. If they covered up for even 1 priest that’s too many.
Compared to what?
No one is suggesting that covering child molestation is no big deal. But ranting and raving about in blogs and in the MSM for days on end is a big deal. And if it seems that it is systemic, but now action is being taken, then let’s see if we can move back on to page 42 in the Religion section, and out of the “crimes against humanity” section.
Sean, “What would you do if it happened to your children?” is an ugly, vulgar, and obscene way to make a point. I was and am furious, that he would do such a thing. It is vile and reprehensible, and knowing how spineless Zython is, I have not asked for an apology, nor do I expect one.
And I am not starting anything again – despite your feverish hunting down a link to provoke me. I was merely stating the sentiment that Zython would fear for his life, not that I was prepared to kill him.
There are numerous occasions on this blog when nearly all of you have said things that would earn you a punch in the face , were you at arm’s length from the person you addressed – including myself.
SDM: Mine is at 0. If they covered up for even 1 priest that’s too many.
F DiS: Compared to what?
Do you realize at all that when you say things like that that you come off sounding like a callous apologist (at best)?
“I think covering up for even one rapist is too much, don’t you, Frank?”
“Oh, I dunno. Compared to what? Is it really that bad?”
F Dis: Sean, “What would you do if it happened to your children?” is an ugly, vulgar, and obscene way to make a point. I was and am furious, that he would do such a thing. It is vile and reprehensible, …
It’s actually a fair and valid question. It’s easy for people who have not been directly involved in something to not get how it affects those who are. To sugggest that someone who doesn’t seem to be “getting it” imagine themselves in the position of the abused is a pefectly legitimate way of getting them to understand why it is a big deal.
That you respond to any attempt to get you to understand things from another’s point of view with indignation and fury just further indicates to folks that you have an irrational, heartless and closed mind.
… and knowing how spineless Zython is,
…
And I am not starting anything again – despite your feverish hunting down a link to provoke me. I was merely stating the sentiment that Zython would fear for his life, not that I was prepared to kill him.
Oh, please. To claim s/he’s spineless just because s/he isn’t standing in front of you carries no weight whatsoever as long as you insist upon remaining safely sitting behind your own keyboard in New Rochelle.
And I didn’t have to “feverishly hunt” for anything. I know you want to think so; it makes it easier for you to feel you’re some victim if folks are “feverishly” looking for ways ta git ya. But in reality your most outrageous statements take only a calm moment to find including examples of your eagerness to respond so someone who disagrees with you threats and your eagerness to attack me with a baseball bat (which also contains your obviously false promise to not threaten folks with violence). So if I were Zython and standing in front of you I would certainly have reason to fear for my life.
There are numerous occasions on this blog when nearly all of you have said things that would earn you a punch in the face , were you at arm’s length from the person you addressed – including myself.
And asking you to feel some empathy and put yourself in the place of someone who has been abused is one of those things?
You keep stating that your iron rule of debate is insults always start on the left. I disagree and could easily point to numerous discussions where that was not the case. But it does seem pretty much the rule that threats of violence always come from the right.
Sean, “What would you do if it happened to your children?” is an ugly, vulgar, and obscene way to make a point.
Only if you lack any basic sense of empathy.
It is vile and reprehensible
And here we see where “Frank’s Theory of Political Discourse” comes from. It’s easy to come to the conclusion that liberals are the first ones to sling mud when everything they say sounds like mud-slinging to you.
And I am not starting anything again – despite your feverish hunting down a link to provoke me. I was merely stating the sentiment that Zython would fear for his life, not that I was prepared to kill him.
You’ve certainly used language to that expresses otherwise.
“What would you do if it happened to your children?” is an ugly, vulgar, and obscene way to make a point. I was and am furious, that he would do such a thing. It is vile and reprehensible
You’re clearly more upset about being asked a question designed to evoke empathy than you are about your Church systematically raping children and hiding it from the light of day. Just disgusting.
And quit it with the tough guy routine. No one’s buying it.
Frank, Frank, Frank…
“What would you do if it happened to your children?” is an ugly, vulgar, and obscene way to make a point. I was and am furious, that he would do such a thing. It is vile and reprehensible
You’re clearly more upset about being asked a question designed to evoke empathy than you are about your Church systematically raping children and hiding it from the light of day. Just disgusting.
And quit it with the tough guy routine. No one’s buying it.
And here we see where “Frank’s Theory of Political Discourse” comes from. It’s easy to come to the conclusion that liberals are the first ones to sling mud when everything they say sounds like mud-slinging to you.
Already noted.
Corollary to DiSalle’s Law: Anything said by the left (such as pointing out facts like 42 isn’t 1.8 times as big as 15) can be perceived as an insult and thereby justify any insults from the right.
But, then, Frank’s standard has always been to loudly proclaim that he’s as bad as the people he complains about.
Funny how what I perceived as an “ugly, vulgar, and obscene way to make a point,” becomes a plea for empathy, after mambo says it is. I wonder why it didn’t occur to either Sean or Zython, until then?
I’ll tell you what I think — I think it was cheap, underhanded, low blow, and it was designed to make me look cold, heartless and unfeeling. It had nothing to do with eliciting empathy.
I have avoided a maudlin defense of myself that I have been tempted to use since the very first time someone accused me of not caring about children being molested, an implication that has been cast about on several threads for many days now.
I thought it would be inappropriate for me to say, “I have children, and one of them was molested – still think I don’t care? How many molested children do you have?” But I still view it as a low and despicable tactic. Pretending it was said to evoke empathy is simply a lie to cover up the miserable motive behind it.
Now , if anyone wants to talk about my children, you may ( I expect now you one of you miscreants will suggest that it was either me or a priest that did it, to amuse your fellow cretins), but it would still be vulgar and reprehensible.
As I said before, the cruelty of liberals while preaching compassion and tolerance never ceases to amaze , and sicken me.
As for my being violent , this is what I said a short while ago : “No, it is a statement that YOU would fear for your life, because you are a coward, hiding behind a keyboard, miles away.”
That is not a statement to the effect that I would hurt anyone.
I reciprocate your gratitude, Frank.
If I may, here’s a bit of news that you won’t hear Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Maureen Dowd, or Oliver Willis commenting about:
Pope’s childhood home defaced
April 13, 2010
MARKTL-AM-INN, Germany, April 13 (UPI) — Pope Benedict XVI’s childhood home in Germany was vandalized Tuesday with graffiti that was quickly painted over, police said.
Police in the southern German town of Marktl-am-Inn didn’t release the exact words of the graffiti but said it referred to the current sex-abuse scandal plaguing the Roman Catholic Church, The Washington Times reported.
“The wall over the entrance door of the Pope birth house had insulting contents written in blue,” said a Bavarian police report, which the Times translated with the help of a computer program. “The writer obviously used a lacquer spray can to write 30 centimeter letters.”
Police estimated the vandalism caused about $2,000 worth of damage. No suspects have been identified.
Can you say, Nox de fenestrae infractus
I’m betting it was the fault of liberals, amirite Frank?
And your prior post – you’re wrong about most of it. And seeing how you chose to disbelieve me when I shared a similar, personal story about child molestation, I call bullshit on yours. Seems awfully convenient that your story crops up after you were obliterated in the argument, doesn’t it?
Oh noes! The Pope’s crib was graffitied for his running D for kid fuckers for years?
How terrible. Of course the liberal media wouldn’t cover such an assault on a child molester protector.
Well that’s surely the equivalent of mass child rape.
My story isn’t true because yours was or wasn’t. I was not obliterated on the argument; I was insulted, and angry.
As for some other comment being mostly wrong? What a scathing analysis! You sure showed me! Damn, you’re a dope.
Marco, thanks for that childish insight! Of course, you don’t CARE that his childhood was vandalized; I doubt any of you lefties care about it.
Perhaps, if you gave it some thought during you infantile chuckling, you might realize the significance of the act.
What am I saying?
Of course you won’t! What do you care?
It’s only Pope’s home of birth. Would you care if, say, Martin Luther King, Jr’s birthplace were vandalized? Yes? No?
a) I never implied or inferred that it was.
b) I hope you’re not saying that the Pope is guilty of mass “rape”.
c) I’ll ask you what I asked Marco – What if, say, Martin Luther King, Jr’s birthplace were vandalized? Would that be the equivalent of “mass child rape” ? Or would you just call it “Tea Bagger Terrorism”?
No, Frank. I don’t care that his childhood home was vandalized. I care more the kids who were raped and sexually assaulted by priests over and over again for years. Priests the Pope gave cover to for years and years, allowing it to happen again and again.
Forgive me. I will save my tears for the abused, and not the enabler’s childhood home. Most sane people would do the same, which explains why you’re upset about the graffiti.
Did MLK run cover for child rapists for years, or are you going to continue to pretend there isn’t a reason for the vandalism?
Incredible.
Marco, you are kidding, right?
Vandalism is a crime !
C R I M E
as in against the law
as in punishable by the authorities
You are virtually slobbering to have the Pope punished, are you not?
But the people who vandalized his birthplace? Not so much…
Let me ask you, is this NOT anti – Catholic bigotry?
OR
Is it NOT blatant hypocrisy?
I am sure you are about to tell me that vandalizing someone’s home is fine, if YOU don’t like them.
Let’s hope someone who doesn’t like you, doesn’t feel that way about YOUR home.
Of course it’s a crime, Frank. You’re pretending it happened for no reason and seething with fake shock. Like someone just woke up one day and decided to spray paint the Pope’s house.
“Why oh why would anyone vandalize the Pope’s home? He only covered for child rapists for years on end? Is there no justice?”
Embarrassing, even by your standards.
You’re pretending it happened for no reason
On the contrary – I know exactly why it happened.
YOU are pretending that the reason it happened justifies it happenening.
I am not pretending anything – anti- Catholic sentiment has just been kicked up a notch; that’s what happened.
And you don’t care because you sympathize with that sentiment.
Sure, Frank. Although anyone with eyes can read your fake outrage. Maybe if the head of the Catholic Church didn’t hide kid fuckers for years, he’d illicit sympathy from anyone else but you.
But you shed tears for poor Pope Benedict, child molester protector. I’ll save mine.
Also, why bring up a hypothetical – MLK’s home getting vandalized – if you weren’t feigning outrage, the modern conservative’s favorite pastime.
I’ll wait.
Vandalism is a crime !
C R I M E
as in against the law
On one hand, we have a high ranking church official who valued the reputation of the church over the well-being of its children. On the other, we have some crank with a can of spray paint.
Which one is Frank worked up about?
If the priests spray painted on the kids after raping them, Frank would be upset.
Funny how what I perceived as an “ugly, vulgar, and obscene way to make a point,” becomes a plea for empathy, after mambo says it is. I wonder why it didn’t occur to either Sean or Zython, until then?
I find this funny considering that my post was made over 20 minutes before mambo’s
I’ll tell you what I think — I think it was cheap, underhanded, low blow, and it was designed to make me look cold, heartless and unfeeling. It had nothing to do with eliciting empathy.
Perhaps you think that, but past record has shown that what you think tends to be wrong.
Pretending it was said to evoke empathy is simply a lie to cover up the miserable motive behind it.
As much as it pains me to hear that one of your children was a victim of such a horrible crime, I assure you I had no way of knowing that beforehand. I then fail to see how my question could’ve been made out of malice.
As I said before, the cruelty of liberals while preaching compassion and tolerance never ceases to amaze , and sicken me.
Compassion and tolerance doesn’t extend to the cruel and intolerant. It kinda defeats the point.