View Full Version : Richard Dawkins wants to arrest the Pope!

12-04-2010, 04:28 PM

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2010, 04:31 PM
Try here (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/richard-dawkins-promises-to-arrest-pope-benedict-xvi/story-e6frf7lf-1225852600931) for anyone seeking the actual story! [edit: see below]

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2010, 04:38 PM
And try here (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415) for anyone seeking the facts as opposed to the story. Dawkins says it is a beat-up.

12-04-2010, 04:49 PM
I heard they smoke a good stuff in Britain.

12-04-2010, 04:55 PM
I heard they smoke a good stuff in Britain.

The same tactic seemed to have worked on Tzipi Livni.

13-04-2010, 11:07 AM
Seven questions the media didnít ask before smearing the Pope (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/seven_questions_the_media_didnt_ask_before_smearin g_the_pope/)
Phil Lawler via Andrew Bolt, 13 April 2010

Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.

Had Oaklandís Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priestís application.

Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesleís dismissal from the priesthood.

Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.

Did Cardinal Ratzingerís reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.

Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.

Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesleís predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.

14-04-2010, 09:41 PM
What smearing? The whole scandal has barely been covered.