It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep sex-abuse allegations secret

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Pope Benedict XVI are facing claims of obstruction of justice. The Observer has got hold of a letter, signed by Ratzinger, where bishops dealing with child sex-abuse claims were told to keep the suspicions secret. The order was made in letter sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.
 



observer.guardian.co.uk
Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.

The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.

Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of justice.'

A spokeswoman in the Vatican press office declined to comment when told about the contents of the letter. 'This is not a public document, so we would not talk about it,' she said.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think the spokeswoman sums up the situation nicely; ...we would not talk about it...

I can understand their desire to protect the reputation of the church, but surely they must realise that this tactic will backfire?

Related News Links:
www.smh.com. au

[edit on 24/4/05 by gekko]




posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Funny that..i have had two people take one look at ratzinger and say right away...he looks like a pedaphile.......he gives me the creeps



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Same as the rest of the old elite down there. I personally find it tragic that these men are so powerful...



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
It sounds like this wasn't a good choice to heal the wounds many U.S. Catholics and others feel towards the Vatican and the RCC in general over the priest-pedophilia scandal.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.

This is a long, long way from cover up

I voted yes for this article because true or not this is news worthy


I'm not getting on any bandwagon to burn the Pope at this stage.



I will wait and see the 'rest of the story' before I light any matches.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
If the "Church" allowed clergy to marry, maybe these perversions would cease.

Someone told me the new Pope used to be a "Hitler Youth."

I believe there are a lot of hypocrites posings as Christians.

Good article! I vote yes.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Pathetic. A few hundred years ago, it was over the appointments of bishops. At another time, it was over preistly excesses and the selling of indulgences. Now the Voice of the Faithful have something to rally around and schism thru.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Where are the Catholics here?

There must be someone on ATS who think Ratzinger is doing the right thing? I for one promise to listen to all views with an open mind...



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I'm surprised this didn't come up sooner.

I just did a cursory looking into of this guy when he was announced as the front-runner, and the Nazi past, ordered coverup of pediphiles, etc. was all there, yet only slightly reported after he became Pope. The Vatican PR machine must be working in tip-top shape...perhaps Bush could hire them...



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Released hours before the Inauguration of the "Nazi Pope", aka "Panzer Kardinal" aka Pope Benedict XVI.
Just like one week ago, the "revelations", including the photo in nazi uniform, hours before he was "elected" pope.
Or like the "plane that crashed in the Pentagon ".
Always the same: telling to the last idiot, WE are the illuminati, YOU are human cattle.

It should be obvious why, you just need to add 1 and 1.
Some help:
- what's the difference between this "revelation" and having Cardinal Law celebrating one of the official masses for JPII, the same day that more "news" about the Catholic Church giving another [insert 2 digit numeral here] millions to settle down sexual abuse of "priests"?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
gekko and Gaz if I were on trial for something I sure wouldn't want either of you on the jury


Read what the man wrote- not what you or someone else has 'spun' it to say.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
gekko and Gaz if I were on trial for something I sure wouldn't want either of you on the jury


All you would need is a good defence attorney doing his job, then...


Originally posted by gekko
There must be someone on ATS who think Ratzinger is doing the right thing? I for one promise to listen to all views with an open mind...


... I would listen to his version.


Problem is, there is no one defending him on the thread. Could it be that his actions speak for themselves?



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Hmmm, I wonder what happens to Child Molsterors in Xtreme Islamic World - I dont think they would last very long.

But hey, lets protect the people who made this sex abuses!

Lets put them above the laws!

Lets hide the evidence and lets Forget all about what happened!

I say:

Burn'em.

Hang'em.

Cut'em up.

I dont care.

Just dont LIE about it!



[edit on 25/4/05 by Souljah]



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by gekko
Problem is, there is no one defending him on the thread. Could it be that his actions speak for themselves?

' >boot> take off your blinders


Did you send this thread to the Pope? No

Did he see it? NO
(he probably is a little busy at the present)

Just because you say something is one way does not make it that way. I read the comments on his letter (in the story), so what? He did an internal investigation and wanted it kept internal.

whoop-di-do

Where is the ahh, ahhh, whatever you claim-



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I can't see how anyone would be surprised about this. The priest that ran the mass at the pope's funeral was in charge of the cover-up.

this just continues that trend.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
JoeDoaks, you are not saying why he did the right thing by keeping the allegations secret.

Slagging me off for pointing out facts doesn't make his actions right. The letter exists, no-one is disputing that.

The question is, did he have any noble reasons for keeping the cases secret, or was he just helping a bunch of child-molesters to protect the church reputation.

I would like to see both sides argued. Telling me what a distasteful guy I am is hardly going to make me change my opinion on anything.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster
If the "Church" allowed clergy to marry, maybe these perversions would cease.

That doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting that if you haven't been laid in a while that you are going to start, of all things, molesting littleboys? I could understand if there were a lot of preists who had long term 'mistresses', that might warrant suggesting allowing them to marry, but this?


Someone told me the new Pope used to be a "Hitler Youth."

Did they neglect to tell you that everyone in germany who was young enough was forced into the hitler youth? Or that this pope's family was constantly on the move because of clashes with the nazis?


Problem is, there is no one defending him on the thread. Could it be that his actions speak for themselves?

Nothing to defend. He's yet another person in the system who insanely is protecting these pedophile preists. It's deplorable. He's done it, the old 'great' pope didn't do anything about it, heck no one's doing anything about it.
Maybe that Carbineri should kick down the bronze doors and make some arrests?


souljah
Hmmm, I wonder what happens to Child Molsterors in Xtreme Islamic World - I dont think they would last very long.

When they are mullahs and imams they probably do. Hell, what happens to a pre-teen girl who is rapped in islam? She gets stoned to death no?


crakeur
The priest that ran the mass at the pope's funeral was in charge of the cover-up.

Strictly speaking, Law was permitted to have a memorial/honourary mass for JPII. But yes, its a bunch of BS. I started a thread about ithere


gekko
The question is, did he have any noble reasons for keeping the cases secret, or was he just helping a bunch of child-molesters to protect the church reputation.

The Church is all about forgiveness. These pedophile preists probably confessed, and as such, some people in the church felt that they had to 'protect' them. So they moved them around, pretending that god or some such would motivate them thru faith and give them strength to resist, or somesuch. I'd bet thats how they justified it.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by gekko
JoeDoaks, you are not saying why he did the right thing by keeping the allegations secret.

Slagging me off for pointing out facts doesn't make his actions right. The letter exists, no-one is disputing that.

The question is, did he have any noble reasons for keeping the cases secret, or was he just helping a bunch of child-molesters to protect the church reputation.

I would like to see both sides argued. Telling me what a distasteful guy I am is hardly going to make me change my opinion on anything.

Not noble
Not 'criminal'
[Stereo type hat goes on]
Ratzinger is a German= methodical and pragmatic
Ratzinger is a very high church official= authority
Ratzinger is intelligent
-
O.K., now just given these as a premise he wanted two things:
    protect the church,
    solve the problem

I'm not going to claim he wanted to protect the victims as that would be a stretch and probably not true anyway (could be true).

The BEST way to conduct an investigation is in darkness (aka secrecy) and in plain site. These are proven 'rules' and should come as no surprise to anyone over the age of 6.
Like it or not secrecy permits disclosures that otherwise would not be made.

Back to primary goal= protect church.
First way to protect church is find out if there is a problem. If this litmus is found then find the reason. Here is the part where the second level of secrecy is important. These are people that caused the problem and people that knew and did not stop the problem.

I hope this is fairly clear.

So, to locate the problem areas Ratzinger needed people willing to talk even through coercion. If these guilty people knew or thought they would be publicly 'outed' Ratzinger could not have found out what he did.

This is another 'old rule' I have learned through the years. 'Acts performed in a fish bowl are not true.'
During negotiations for contracts (union, company, business, legal, etc.) it is a (again) proven that 'behind closed doors' results in easier agreements and generally less costs for all involved.

Back to Ratzinger- as a student of church history he knows a lot about the Inquisition. He knows about any efforts made by churchmen during WW II and other times to ameliorate pain and suffering. The Inquisition was public and a failure. The (Catholic) church saved many persecuted people during its history and this was done in private for the most part.

Does this make sense?

(I am not a Catholic and I think Ratzonger could have done things differently)



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Joe doaks...
If you are a christian, then I am surprised that you are not offended by the abuse of the excommunication order... it is supposed to be reserved for people who abuse the church or its power( ie: the pope)
...not to be used on the whistleblowers who seek truth and justice...

The pope is wrong for that one main reason...
of course abuse takes place... but not his fault (directly)...
of course they will want to conceal it... thats just good PR policy...
of course they will abuse the rights of the victims in favor of church sanctity...
the few for the many... right?

what is DOWN RIGHT WRONG IS THIS!
if a person or preist is ever moved by the Spirit to "out" one of the situations, then the pope abuses GODS LAW by excommunicating the good guy who actually DID THE RIGHT THING! (he will actually petition god to prevent the good guys heavenly reward).
that is deserving of the hottest place in hell, and the man is supposed to be the voice of GOD.
When the second coming happens... Jesus gonna kick that man off his fake thrown in a scene worse than the money changers.

Another point: Historical advatage is the only thing that separates the catholic churches actions from that of DAVID KORESH...
they are both guilty of the same thing...
the condoned and protected practice of sexually abusing children within a religious group.

So why hasn't the ATF stormed the catholic church to rescue all those potentially abused children? (the case could be made that many more children are in danger within the catholic church, than the entire population of Waco Texas...

answer: the catholic church claims to be above mans law, and that they have jurisdictional right to prevent any info from getting out using any means neccessary. (they claim they have right of police, judge and jury)
kinda too bad that even native americans don't have that kind of autonomy in this country...and they have a contract...
the catholic church has what right to say... any crimes our church members perpetrate are not succeptable to the US law or any other law?
what makes them so special? can we please see Gods signed permission slip ?

[edit on 25-4-2005 by LazarusTheLong]



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
It comes as no surprise that they would go to such extremes to cover it up, after all this is a corporate entity, state and powerful male club which makes no bones about spouting divinely led guidance, yet for all of its history it has as its legacy a most controversial and atrocious CV. The Curiae knows full well that to come clean on anything is to admit that either divine guidance is not backing them or that God condones this type of behaviour.

Ratzinger goes out of his way to point the moralistic finger at those who would 'rob' his many banks of Peter's pence and tithing, yet he wasted no time apologizing for his membership in the Nazi party while hiding behind the compulsory call to do so, and the flock laps up that story and say it was not his fault. However, ratzinger had met his call by Jesus 4 years previously but decided to pick up the gun and bayonet anyway. He had three choices, suffer the consequences of saying no in the name of his God, join the army, or become a martyr for the cause as did many other youths who opted instead to belong to the Edelweiss Pirates, and fight the dictator.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join