From various websites, the German pontiff is being targeted for a reason. It is time to wipe out any vestige of his influence on the Church. The socialist world Church "goose steps" on.
Editor's note: In perhaps The Pillar's most egregious copy error to date, I wrote this morning that Benedict XVI "helped usher in a new legal error on these matters with Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela."
The text ought to have said that the former pontiff helped usher in a new ERA.
The error, about which we feel quite sheepish, has been corrected. If, however, you are reading The Tuesday Pillar Post in your inbox, the error perdures, and for that we apologize.
Be assured you and Ed and your staff are faithfully in my prayers. Please keep shedding light on the devastation that our Magisterium is wreaking upon our Church.
Benedict wasn’t in the meeting…until he was.
He didn’t know they guy was a pedophile? That’s a failure of management and leadership. If it’s true, which I doubt…NO ONE in the room thought to tell him MUST mean he ALREADY knew…
Liar, Liar, pants on FIRE (of HELL, I rather suspect)
What happened to the Christopher’s is the most vile abuse I have heard. I want to vomit. Cleveland Diocese has a ton to answer for, but they won’t by all appearances. God Bless this family with a torrent of Grace
Why are they making such a big case out of this nothingburger, when the other bishops in that diocese like Marx, were (as admitted by them) far more culpable. The focus on Ratzinger, the constant focus on any prelate considered to be conservative, and ignoring the many more (don't want to use polarizing labels like 'liberal') Jelly Donut bishops that basically birthed, delivered and raised the sexual abuse crisis, and who now wish to mount it over their fireplace as a reform to the church in matters sexual morality.
Look at the cases he was was implicated in and compare them to the far worse cases that any liberal bishop of that day perpetrated (Daneels, who gave us our current Pope). This is a wildly double, nay triple standard, and you guys are luft-inspektoring what has been clearly established as a clerical error. As for the other cases, they were basically business as usual for that time. This was the policy at that time, informed by '<The Science>' of that time.
I mean do the many critical voices now want Ratzinger to resign? . . . . again!?
Read the Mahoney, Don't read the Mahoney files they are awful. from my own experience, and confirmed by most of the cases I have seen, the chaos inflicted by the pursuit of an elusive (an mostly permissive) 'spirit of vatican 2' created the moral chaos that gave cover to the abuse crisis.
Both sides were to blame here. The left for (let's be honest) for mostly perpetrating it and the right (i.e. poor Bishop Finn) for expecting the left to clean up their own mess.
Benedict, in sharp contrast to this attitude, insisted that all theses cases come to his own office, taking personal responsibility for each case.
It is fascinating to me to read about this, when one can see that the defrocking of abusive clerics dramatically increased under Benedict and tanked again when Francis took over. Benedict clearly needed to do more (e.g., going public about McCarrick instead of privately restricting him), but any fair person will note that of all the modern popes, Benedict did the most to clean up the filth in the Church, and he was working with an intransigent curia that often resisted his efforts.
By contrast, Francis published a book demonizing sex abuse victims in an attempt to get a convicted pedophile priest off the hook and then lied about it on camera in the documentary Code of Silence. I'm all for holding bishops to account, but the targeting of Benedict seems political in this case given the much worse actions of Benedict's German bishop peers like Cardinal Marx and even Pope Francis himself.
From various websites, the German pontiff is being targeted for a reason. It is time to wipe out any vestige of his influence on the Church. The socialist world Church "goose steps" on.
Editor's note: In perhaps The Pillar's most egregious copy error to date, I wrote this morning that Benedict XVI "helped usher in a new legal error on these matters with Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela."
The text ought to have said that the former pontiff helped usher in a new ERA.
The error, about which we feel quite sheepish, has been corrected. If, however, you are reading The Tuesday Pillar Post in your inbox, the error perdures, and for that we apologize.
Be assured you and Ed and your staff are faithfully in my prayers. Please keep shedding light on the devastation that our Magisterium is wreaking upon our Church.
Benedict wasn’t in the meeting…until he was.
He didn’t know they guy was a pedophile? That’s a failure of management and leadership. If it’s true, which I doubt…NO ONE in the room thought to tell him MUST mean he ALREADY knew…
Liar, Liar, pants on FIRE (of HELL, I rather suspect)
What happened to the Christopher’s is the most vile abuse I have heard. I want to vomit. Cleveland Diocese has a ton to answer for, but they won’t by all appearances. God Bless this family with a torrent of Grace
Why is Fr. Jean-Marie Nsambu wearing a hat in church?
Why are they making such a big case out of this nothingburger, when the other bishops in that diocese like Marx, were (as admitted by them) far more culpable. The focus on Ratzinger, the constant focus on any prelate considered to be conservative, and ignoring the many more (don't want to use polarizing labels like 'liberal') Jelly Donut bishops that basically birthed, delivered and raised the sexual abuse crisis, and who now wish to mount it over their fireplace as a reform to the church in matters sexual morality.
Look at the cases he was was implicated in and compare them to the far worse cases that any liberal bishop of that day perpetrated (Daneels, who gave us our current Pope). This is a wildly double, nay triple standard, and you guys are luft-inspektoring what has been clearly established as a clerical error. As for the other cases, they were basically business as usual for that time. This was the policy at that time, informed by '<The Science>' of that time.
I mean do the many critical voices now want Ratzinger to resign? . . . . again!?
Read the Mahoney, Don't read the Mahoney files they are awful. from my own experience, and confirmed by most of the cases I have seen, the chaos inflicted by the pursuit of an elusive (an mostly permissive) 'spirit of vatican 2' created the moral chaos that gave cover to the abuse crisis.
Both sides were to blame here. The left for (let's be honest) for mostly perpetrating it and the right (i.e. poor Bishop Finn) for expecting the left to clean up their own mess.
Benedict, in sharp contrast to this attitude, insisted that all theses cases come to his own office, taking personal responsibility for each case.
It is fascinating to me to read about this, when one can see that the defrocking of abusive clerics dramatically increased under Benedict and tanked again when Francis took over. Benedict clearly needed to do more (e.g., going public about McCarrick instead of privately restricting him), but any fair person will note that of all the modern popes, Benedict did the most to clean up the filth in the Church, and he was working with an intransigent curia that often resisted his efforts.
By contrast, Francis published a book demonizing sex abuse victims in an attempt to get a convicted pedophile priest off the hook and then lied about it on camera in the documentary Code of Silence. I'm all for holding bishops to account, but the targeting of Benedict seems political in this case given the much worse actions of Benedict's German bishop peers like Cardinal Marx and even Pope Francis himself.