Subject: Should the pope not be serving a few consecutive life sentences?
Truth is God.
And the sins of the fathers just keep coming. On Friday, The Associated Press broke the latest story pointing the finger of blame directly at, quoting from a letter written in Latin in which he resisted pleas to defrock a California priest who had sexually molested children.
As the longtime Pope Benedict XVI — moved avidly to persecute dissenters. But with molesters, he was plodding and even merciful.enforcer, the archconservative Ratzinger — now
As the A.P. reported, the Oakland diocese recommended defrocking Father Stephen Kiesle in 1981. The priest had pleaded no contest and was sentenced to three years' probation in 1978 in a case in which he was accused of tying up and molesting two boys in a church rectory.
In 1982, the Oakland diocese got what it termed a "rather curt" response from the Vatican. It wasn't until 1985 that "God's Rottweiler" finally got around to addressing the California bishop's concern. He sent his letter urging the diocese to give the 38-year-old pedophile "as much paternal care as possible" and to consider "his young age." Ratzinger should have been more alarmed by the young age of the priest's victims; that's what maternal care would have entailed.
As in so many other cases, the primary concern seemed to be shielding the church from scandal. Chillingly, outrageously, the future pope told the Oakland bishop to consider the "good of the universal church" before granting the priest's own request to give up the collar — even though the bishop had advised Rome that the scandal would likely be greater if the priest were not punished.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~