Diocese refuses to release papers in sex-abuse case (More Ratzinger letters)

TheDay.com ^ | 05/21/2010 01:18 AM | Joe Wojtas

[TSgt]

a 2005 letter about Shea that current Bishop Michael Cote sent to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI.

Another letter to Ratzinger without a response?

[Sun]

Yawn.

Everytime I hear a story like this, later I hear the other side, and the Pope is cleared.

But the antiCatholics will keep trying.

[TSgt]

For the Ratzinger letter, it says the communication is privileged because it is an attorney work product, is material prepared in anticipation of litigation and is protected by the First Amendment and the Connecticut Constitution.

Attorney work product to Ratzinger? I find the church's claim that Bishops are not employed by the church interesting if they are reaching out to the Vatican, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for legal matters.

[TSgt]

In 1980 as archbishop of Munich and Freising, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger unwittingly approved housing for a priest accused of child abuse. A former deputy later said he made the decision

Cardinal Ratzinger failed to act over complaints during the 1990s about US priest Lawrence Murphy, who is thought to have abused some 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin

Cardinal Ratzinger allowed a case against Arizona priest Michael Teta to languish at the Vatican for more than a decade despite repeated pleas for his removal

Cardinal Ratzinger resisted the defrocking of California priest Stephen Kiesle, a convicted offender, saying "good of the universal Church" needed to be considered

This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favour of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner. - Ratzinger

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Everytime I hear a story like this, later I hear the other side, and the Pope is cleared.

lol. The pope is cleared?

Yeah, like Clinton was cleared.

If jurisprudence still means anything, Ratzinger will end up behind bars for not only obstructing justice, but for aiding and abetting criminals, one of whom is his brother.

But the antiCatholics will keep trying.

No one here is "antiCatholic." Many, however, thank God, are anti-homosexuality, anti-pederasty; anti-idolatry and anti-totalitarianism.

[wmfights]

No one here is "antiCatholic."

I am antidumb-ss.

These guys who think they are so smart covering up this evil are a bunch of dumb-sses. If they would just release all the bad info and be done with it they would take a hit, but in the end people would forgive because they would see the effort to clean up and end the evil.

My FIL was EO and and used to say once they knew they had a problem they should have disclosed everything. It's the cover up that will bury them.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

One has to wonder just how damning the evidence is that Rome works so feverishly to hide.

[wmfights]

One has to wonder just how damning the evidence is that Rome works so feverishly to hide.

We don't know one way or the other. I'm inclined to believe it's bad because they resist disclosing everything. If it weren't so bad why fight disclosure? But we just don't know.

[pissant]

You get diddled as a kid?

[pissant]

No one here is anti-Catholic. ROFL. What a f***** lie that is.

[TSgt]

You get diddled as a kid?

What a vile thing to ask. But I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“In 1980 as archbishop of Munich and Freising, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger unwittingly approved housing for a priest accused of child abuse.”

Unwittingly. Case closed.

“Cardinal Ratzinger failed to act over complaints during the 1990s about US priest Lawrence Murphy, who is thought to have abused some 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin”

Actually Ratzinger’s office acted to the extent of its authority and did so in less than a year (and you’re conveniently leaving out the fact that the priest had not functioned as one in over 20 years by that point anyway).

“Cardinal Ratzinger allowed a case against Arizona priest Michael Teta to languish at the Vatican for more than a decade despite repeated pleas for his removal”

Michael Teta was put on administrative leave in 1989 and suspended in 1990 by Bishop Manuel Moreno. Thus, he had not functioned as a priest since 1990. His bishops spent 7 years gathering evidence for a trial that finally started in 1997. Meta appealed. It took 6 years for the appeal to be completed. Meta’s appeal was rejected in 2004. He was “defrocked” in 2005. There was no unusual delay on Ratzinger’s part at all.

“Cardinal Ratzinger resisted the defrocking of California priest Stephen Kiesle...”

No, he did not.

- 1978-1981: [Kiesle] Takes extended leave of absence, attends counseling and reports regularly to probation officer.

- July 1981: Oakland Bishop John Cummins sends Kiesle’s file to the Vatican in support of the priest’s petition for laicization.

- November 1981: Vatican asks for more information.

- 1982: Kiesle moves to Pinole.

- February 1982: Cummins writes to Ratzinger providing additional information and warning of possible scandal if Kiesle is not defrocked.

- September 1982: Oakland diocese official writes Ratzinger asking for update.

- September 1983: Cummins visits Rome, discusses Kiesle case with Vatican officials.

- December 1983: Vatican official writes Oakland to say Kiesle’s file can’t be found and they should resubmit materials.

- January 1984: Cummins writes a Vatican official to inquire about status of Kiesle file.

- 1985: Kiesle volunteers as a youth minister at St. Joseph’s Church in Pinole.

- September 1985: Cummins writes Ratzinger asking about status of Kiesle case.

- November 1985: Ratzinger writes to Cummins about Kiesle case.

- December 1985: A memo from diocese officials discusses writing to Ratzinger again to stress the risk of scandal if Kiesle’s case is delayed.

- 1987: Kiesle is defrocked.

The more I learn about these cases, the more I realize that the secular press not only spins them wildly but that anti-Catholics are dumb enough to believe the spin.

[TSgt]

What a f***** lie that is.

Perhaps you should try DU where they, like you, use that type of language due to their limited lexicon.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

What does your abbreviation stand for?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I'm inclined to believe it's bad because they resist disclosing everything. If it weren't so bad why fight disclosure?

RCs and Obama have a lot in common. No wonder 54% of them voted him into office.

[TSgt]

pissant’s posting history reveals an extensive use of expletives. I can only assume this is due to a lack of facts, limited vocabulary and inability to argue one’s position.

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:pissant/index?brevity=full;tab=comments

[pissant]

That would explain your crusade against the Pope.

[pissant]

Cry me a river.

[Antoninus]

More slanderous assumptions posted by FR's foremost Catholic-hater. As a result...

As a faithful Catholic, I am placing this thread on

IGNORE

If you are Catholic, be aware that this thread contains slanders about the Catholic Church. We should not reward invincibly ignorant anti-Catholic bigots by engaging them in futile debate. Therefore, please do not respond to any of the lies about the Catholic Church contained on this thread.



Saint Paul pray for those who hate the Church.

[TSgt]

Cry me a river.

All less than two syllables and void of facts to backup one's position. More of the same...