The Christian Solution C   S  
Home Page   About TCS   Contact Us  

March 26, 2009

Pope Benedict: from Condoms to Priest Sex Molestations

Source: Victor L. Simpson of The Associated Press (Today - March 26, 2009)
Condom uproar latest message problem for pope

Source: (Sept. 30, 2006)
Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests'

A good friend of mine told me he had heard that Pope Benedict was the central guy behind the priest sexual molestation cover up.

Here is a defense of the slander against the Pope, in two parts.

Part one covers allegations made in an article today about the Pope saying that condoms increase AIDS in Africa, that also tries to bring up all previous alledged "blunders" by the Pope; while part two covers the specific allegations against the Pope about his "covering-up" the sexual molestations of boys by priests, in an article dated from Sept 2006.

"Condom uproar latest message problem for pope"

The Pope said, "condoms deepen the AIDS crisis".

The title to the article says it all doesn't it? -- "Condom uproar lastest message problem for Pope"

Obviously, any rational person would know that having a condom gives you a "false" sense of safety.

There is indeed a far greater chance of contacting AIDS by sleeping around, even with a condom, than there is if one engages in the moral Christian life which the Pope advocates for his Catholic followers.

Without condoms, perhaps many would even be smart enough to remain faithful to their spouses, if they knew that there was a serious chance of contacting AIDS by sleeping around.

Obviously, the Pope is right about this, but the Jewish media-Scribes tell us that he made a "gaffe".

Later, Vatican spokesmen felt the need to clarify the words of the Pope.

    "While opposition to condoms is a long-standing church position, the Vatican felt constrained to step in and say Benedict wanted to stress that a reliance on condoms distracted from the need for proper education in sexual conduct."

"Proper education in sexual conduct" is abstinence until marriage, faithfulness after marriage, and nothing to keep you from having lots of Catholic children during marriage.

No need for condoms either before marriage or after marriage.

Since when has that NOT been official Catholic teachings?

The Pope made no mistake on Catholic morality.

Benedict was just emerging from a crisis brought on when he lifted the excommunication of four ultraconservative bishops -- one of them a Holocaust denier -- in an effort to end a schism.

The Jewish media-Scribes jumped all over the Pope's case for this one.

In fact, none of these Catholic bishops are true Holocaust deniers.

The one they are talking about was Bishop Williamson.

Bishop Williamson does not deny the killing of Jews, he just believes, after looking at the evidence, that the real number of deaths is only around 300,000, not 6 million.

Perhaps in saying "denial", the Jewish media-Scribes are saying that he is denying the confessions made by German Nazi under torture by Stalin's Judeo-Communist thugs.

Anyway, Bishop Williamson does NOT deny and does indeed believe Jews died under miserable conditions, but he does not believe a single Jew died by gassing. Died by starvation, died by hanging, died by diseases, die by old age, whatever, just did not die by gassing.

Which, even if true, would still be a far more humane way to die than the way Stalin's Judeo-Communists caused Christians to die in the Holodomor.

This is neither a Catholic issue (Germany was a Lutheran country and the Nazis were neither good Lutherans nor good Catholics), nor is it a Christian theological question, nor is it a Christian moral question. The condemnation of immorality is standard Church policy. This was just a question of coming to an agreement over the degree of immorality.

It would help if the Jewish media-Scribes would not deny the Holodomor either.

If anyone should be condemned though, it is the Jewish media-Scribes who should be condemned, not the Pope.

Whether or not our Pope brings out of excommunication a Bishop of the Catholic Church is an internal affair of the Catholic Church.

Jewish Pharisees and Jewish media-Scribes do NOT have a right to meddle in the internal affairs of a Christian Church.

Not mentioned in the article was the fact that the Pope was a "Nazi youth" as a boy. So what! Being a Nazi Youth was not exactly voluntary.

And Saint Paul was a brutal tax-collecting pagan before he met Jesus.

At least Saint Paul did better than today's Jews, he recognized the Son of God when he saw him.

Saint Paul was not a Jesus-denier, which I believe is a far worst sin than being a Holocaust-denier.

The Pope is a German and was a Nazi Youth, and so the Jewish Pharisees think they can push the Catholic Church around because of it.

The Pope has every right, duty and responsibility to bring ALL CHRISTIANS together.

While the Pope can and should try to convert a non-believer to Christianity, the Pope has no duty nor responsibility to bring believers in Jesus together with non-believers of Jesus. -- Even Christians who do not believe that God causes the sun to rise and set on the Jesus-denying Jews.

I would love for the Pope to just tell the entire Holocaust-denier media-circus to go jump in a lake.

Ever since he apparently misspoke about the excommunication of Mexican lawmakers on a trip to Brazil in 2007, the Vatican asks reporters to submit questions in advance and then makes a selection, giving Benedict time to prepare a response.

The emphasis here should be on the word "apparently".

The Pope did not misspeak at all.

Any politician who authorizes the murder of children should be automatically excommunicated.

And in my view of justice, should also be hung till dead or set in front of a firing squad.

Who, but a Jewish media-Scribe, or an atheist, or a misguided Christian would have a problem with a Pope excommunicating his Catholic followers over supporting the abortion of innocent children?

These excommunicated Catholics could always become Protestants if they were not good enough to be Catholics:)

    Mexican lawmakers who voted for a recent bill legalizing abortion in Mexico City during the first trimester have "automatically excommunicated themselves,"according to a Vatican spokesman. Church law states that anyone who procures an abortion (including lawmakers who make abortion legal) is automatically excommunicated, meaning that he cannot receive Communion in the Catholic Church until he has repented of his action and received the Sacrament of Confession.

    In a press conference held on his plane on his way to Brazil, Pope Benedict supported the spokesman's statement, declaring that automatic excommunication in such cases is "nothing new, it's normal."

The first controversy of Benedict's papacy came in 2006 when the pope's remarks on Islam and holy war angered much of the Muslim world, leading him to backtrack and declare he was "deeply sorry." He continues to say that true religion must distance itself from violence, but no longer points a finger at any faith.

Who believes the Pope was wrong about Muhammad?

And after he said what he said, the entire Judeo-Muslim world went berserk, murdering several Roman Catholic nuns, thus proving to the world that the Pope was absolutely right.

The reason for saying he was "deeply sorry" is more of a defense against Muslim blackmail, than an admission of any wrongdoing.

The Judeo-Muslims were saying, "Unless you apologize for calling us 'evil and inhuman', we will continue to kill your priests and nuns."

Nice tolerant guys that they are!

    The Pope was quoted as quoting a 13th century Byzantine leader, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

As prominent commentator Ernesto Galli Della Loggia wrote in Italy's leading Corriere della Sera, the pope has only one weapon to overcome opposition and affirm his authority: "charismatic media appeal that grabs the CNN screen and makes the front page of The New York Times."

Benedict did just that when traveling to the United States last year, a trip viewed as a success after he expressed personal shame over a clergy sex abuse scandal rocking the American church.

This was the closest the article got to mentioning the sex abuse problem and it was a positive statement about this Pope.

Perhaps this writer was not aware of the previous allegations, or perhaps he knows that the previous allegations were all bogus.

(See the next section for the article which accuses him of covering up sexual abuse.)

Five accusations later and I am still saying that this Pope Benedict shines like a Saint.

Now, let's dig down into this particular accusation against the Pope made in Sept of 2006.

"Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests'"

According to the Sept 2006 article, the Pope, named Cardinal Ratzinger before becoming Pope, in his former capacity acted as :

the head of the powerful Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith. An arch-Conservative, he was regarded as the 'enforcer' of Pope John Paul II in cracking down on liberal challenges to traditional Catholic teachings.

I find nothing wrong with the statement above. All Christians should welcome an arch-conservative Catholic Pope who will make the Catholic Church God-centered once again, after many years following Vatican II where the Catholic Church had become Man-centered.

Below is the entire story cropped to just discuss the sexual abuse allegations,

The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, according to a shocking documentary to be screened by the BBC tonight.

The statement "The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child abuse" is a fraudulent lie that I hope to prove is just a twisted interpretation of what Cardinal Ratzinger was actually doing.

The sexual abuses in question were from decades prior to the time Cardinal Ratzinger was assigned to clean up the mess they created.

I hope to show that he is being dumped on unjustly and unfairly by a rabid, anti-Catholic, Jewish media-Scribe press.

In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.

Since this was a "secret" edict, it is hard for me to know if Ratzinger was "putting the Church's interests ahead of child safety". (Some secret!!!)

The statement even sounds a little crazy.

Since when has the Church's interests not been the safety of Catholic children?

For the exceptionally cynical guy, the Church's interests were certainly to stop the abuse of Catholic children, if only to stop the hundred-million-dollar lawsuit jackpots that were being paid out trying to bankrupt the Church.

Saying that the Church's interests were for Catholic children to be abused is an evil accusation that any good Catholic or any good Christian even should be offended in hearing from a Jewish media-Scribe.

The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

Well, if you wish to view it as keeping this abuse secret, then you must be anti-Catholic.

I wish to view it in Constitutional terms.

The Church stood accused of a very heinous crime for a religion and it was exercising its Constitutional Fifth Amendment "right to remain silent".

If that sounds like "hiding a crime", then you are anti-American as well.

The Jewish media-Scribes have a selective desire for others to exercise a right to remain silent. They only insist that really dangerous criminals or Jewish Madoff Ponzi-scheme characters are allowed that privilege.

Later, it will become apparent that "the defendants" were asked to remain silent, because the Vatican legal teams were being brought in to settle the issue, once and for all.

The programme also accuses the Catholic Church of knowingly harbouring pedophile clergymen. It reveals that priests accused of child abuse are generally not struck off or arrested but simply moved to another parish, often to reoffend. It gives examples of hush funds being used to silence the victims.

OK, this is the most deceptive part of the entire article.

As a general defense, "hush funds" were money given to the victim as an "out-of-court settlement.

It's done all the time in the legal field. -- And it's legal.

Someone really offended of being lolested as a boy would ask that the priest serve jail time, as any rapist or child molester would be treated.

And they would ask the same jail time for anyone implicated as an accomplice to the crime, such as his Bishop.

Provided that they can prove that the Priest did not confess his sins and God forgave him of his sins.

But asking for a hundred-million dollars is not the normal way to treat a simple crime of sexual abuse.

Then, the article implies that the Catholic Church can arrest people? -- "Priests are not arrested"

The Catholic Church has no prisons.

Haven't had any since the Spanish Inquisition.

I don't understand the writer's point here.

It is clearly the secular authorities who have the responsibility of insuring justice.

I really don't understand why the Attorney Generals of all the involved States are not the ones sued for letting these Priests skip justice.

They have authority to extradite any priest moved to another location. I have even seen overseas extraditions.

I think it all goes back to money -- You can't sue city hall.

And of course molesting priests were sent to other parishes. Certainly, a priest who did commit a moral sin like this, contritely confessed his sin, AND WAS TRULY REPENTANT and had no further legal actions against him, SHOULD have a chance to START OVER in another parish.

The government has a witness relocation program for former criminals who ragged on their buddies and needed to "start over".

That program was not perfect either if I remember right.

I wonder how much of all this was a bad judgment call on the part of the Bishops?

My burning question would be if the Bishop was also a homosexual and was covering for another homosexual.

If the Bishop was a heterosexual, then he was displaying a great amount of tolerance for the homosexual priest. Perhaps not enough for the children though.

But again, here is why this part of the article is truly DECEPTIVE.

What they are referring to here is what was happening long BEFORE Cardinal Ratzinger was brought from Rome and asked to clean things up here in America. To wrap Ratzinger up in what was happening BEFORE he became involved is hitting below the waist.

But that is the way Jewish media-Scribes play the game. They play dirty. Their game is "divide and conquer". Their game is to get groups fighting each other in a controlled manner. Go fight the Germans, but not enough that we don't have to fight them again. Fight the communists in Korea and Vietnam, but not enough to win. Fight Castro on tiny puny Cuba, but let him survive until he dies of old age.

Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.

Again, was Ratzinger scandalously "covering up sexual scandal" or merely "exercising the Church's legal right to remain silent, while letting the Church's lawyers handle the legal cases?"

I prefer to believe the latter.

This was all legal matters once Ratziger became involved.

Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.

This is the part I said I was getting to.

When faced with hundred-million-dollar lawsuits, we move beyond a few priests playing with boys pee-pees, and entered into the arena of very anti-Catholic prosecutors trying to completely bankrupt the Catholic Church.

The issue was no longer one of sex abuse; the issue had now become a full frontal assault on the Roman Catholic faith.

Yes, Catholic defendants were to remain silent or anything they said could and would be used against them; while Rome, made to be the ultimate legally responsible party in this legal battle, would handle the legal cases.

This was the way it should have been handled from the start.

Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself."

Yes, as I said, this had evolved from sex abuse cases from abuses taking place 20 to 50-years ago, into a case of the Catholic Church having to protect its very existence today.

The Catholic Church was made to defend itself once it became obvious that the "Separation of Church and State" Jewish media-Scribes love brag about was a totally one-way street -- for the government and against the Church.

And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticizing the church's handling of child abuse claims, says: "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

You know this gets pretty deep.

Ordinarily, when someone is accused of rape or murder, that person is accused of the crime and he has to defend HIMSELF.

Prosecutors who wanted to see justice for the victim by a criminal should bring their charges against the person directly responsible.

If he is found guilty, then he has to serve time in prison. Rape and murder are not civil offenses, they are criminal offenses. There is money in civil offenses and jail time in criminal offenses.

These allegedly deeply bruised molested former boys did not want justice seen with the priests locked up. They wanted MONEY. Lots and lots of MONEY.

But priests have no money. They take a vow of poverty.

So in cases like this, lawyers ALWAYS go after the deep pockets.

In this case, the lawyers had to establish a case against, not just the priest who did the abuse against his very strict Catholic theological training, but against the entire Catholic Church.

I would tend to believe that Seminary school would teach the moral principles necessary to exonerate the Catholic Church from doing its "due diligence" of protecting children from unchristian acts by priests.

Anyway, by hook or crook, the Catholic Church was accused of civil laws and Cardinal Ratzinger came to America, from Rome, to defend the Catholic Church from complete confiscation of all Catholic schools and Church property by anti-Catholics.

"When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there's total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world."

Again, another deceptive act of fraudulent journalism. Cardinal Ratzinger is not being accused of doing any of this.

The Panorama programme is presented by Colm O'Gorman, who was raped by a priest when he was 14. He said: "What gets me is that it's the same story every time and every place. Bishops appoint priests who they know have abused children in the past to new parishes and new communities and more abuse happens."

More fraudulent journalism.

Last night Eileen Shearer, director of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults said: "The Catholic Church in England and Wales (has) established a single set of national policies and procedures for child protection work. We are making excellent progress in protecting children and preventing abuse."

Good. About time.

I am going to say that this Pope is the strong-arm who was asked to come in to deal with the problem, not to to hide it. No matter how clearly twisted the Jewish media-Scribe propagandists makes it appear.

Since Ratzinger, the entire scandal has disappeared.

And not because he is hiding it, but because Cardinal Ratzinger put corrective action in place to make sure it will rarely if ever happen again.

<<<< Pope Benedict is indeed a SAINT!!!! >>>>


It is funny to realize in all these stories that the Jewish media-Scribes are worried about "bad" Catholic politicians being excommunicated out of the Church by the "good" leadership of the Catholic Church, while at the same time, they want all "good" Catholic members to become so disgusted by the "bad" Church leadership over the priest scandals that they all leave on their own.

Both are internal affairs of the Catholic Church and none of their business.

Our Founding Fathers gave us the freedom of association.

Other than our families, and maybe not even that, there can be no greater association than our association based upon our faith in God.

A true principle of "Separation of Church and State" would allow Church leadership to define its Church members and would allow the Church members to define its Church leaders, all without government lawsuits, or Jewish media-Scribe twisted half-truths and inuendo.

Truth is that the Jewish media-Scribes want all the Catholic leaders locked up in prison and all its members to become so disgusted by the leaders that they would leave it.

If this were another country the media-Scribes and Phairsees were doing this to, that would be an act of war.


Rabbi Rap Sheet

Public School Rap Sheet

Article located at:
Last Hope for America
Christian Libertarian: Harmonious Union
Church and State

The Christian Solution ©             First Release: March 15, 2008