FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: 1985 letter: Pope Benedict resisted pleas to defrock pedophile priest
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Apr 9 01:44 PM US/Eastern
By GILLIAN FLACCUS
Associated Press Writer

"LOS ANGELES (AP) - 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."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=..._article=1
what do you think fartmaster?


Well I think something stinks here alright.
They are operating under the false assumption that any decision not to defrock even a credibly accused abuser is negligence. 
(04-09-2010, 02:51 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: [ -> ]They are operating under the false assumption that any decision not to defrock even a credibly accused abuser is negligence. 

They are also operating under the assumption that defrocking a priest would automatically make him not be a pedophile or homosexual.
(04-09-2010, 02:51 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: [ -> ]They are operating under the false assumption that any decision not to defrock even a credibly accused abuser is negligence. 

Why is that a false assumption? 
How about the media stops miscatogorizing these priests as pedophiles, when they are targetign post-pubescant boys, and are just homosexuals. 
(04-09-2010, 03:07 PM)amasimp Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2010, 02:51 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: [ -> ]They are operating under the false assumption that any decision not to defrock even a credibly accused abuser is negligence. 

Why is that a false assumption? 

1.  Laicization is a formal process which isn't the only tool available to authorities. Because laicization isn't the only disciplinary tool available to the Church, priest can be suspended, like Father Marx of HLI was, and put under restriction, and even given walking papers.

2. They are also assuming that "defrocking" would stop a pederast from acting again.  Paul Shanley is still at large and probably still abusing, while our Milwaukee priest friend had never molested another child after he was suspended in 1975 from his job at St. John's.

Hot Rod:  Yes, the Media needs to start calling them Sodomites.
Never let facts, and precise understanding of the terms used, stop you from a hatchet job.
tim
Quote: 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."
I believe the priest at this time was 90 years old and sick.  He died the next year.  I hope he repented for his sick homosexual molestation and sodomy of deaf boys.

The article is a hit job.  The priest was suspended.  Laicizing him would do nothing.  The person at fault was the local ordinary.  Perhaps stripping him of his bishopric would have done some good.


Pages: 1 2 3