Cardinal Ratzinger - is this true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yinekka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

yinekka

Guest
An anti Catholic who posts on a Catholic discussion forum here in Australia wrote today about Cardinal Ratzinger.:

“He was the leading member of the Curia, who told the American Bishops that they didn’t need to turn over evidence to the State, regarding files on Priest/Pedophiles. He was also the one, if I’m not mistaken, who told our bishops to hide documents in the Cardinal’s Office, who is similar to the Vatican’s Ambassador to the States. I think that his name was Bequavilla, but I could have him confused with someone else.”

I asked her for her source and she said The Boston Globe. Can anyone shed some light on the allegations? If she is incorrect I will apply to the coadministrator of the board to have her banned because this amounts to libel and slander.
 
No, hi didn’t do so. Maybe he saied to hide the situtation of the pedophils scandals to save the Church from the mass-media scandals. But he told to the Bishops to take measures to stop the phenomen.
 
I’m not sure what the reference to ‘Bequavilla’ is? There is a Cardinal Bevillaqua (not sure if that is spelled right). Is that who this person is referring to, or Ratzinger? Hopefully you can get more info.

God Bless, Nicole
 
Ratzinger is the person technically responsible for policing the abuse isssue. That authority was given to him by JPII a couple of years ago.

Whether that means he is responsible for all the documents that have been sent to Rome is just conjecture.

However, LaCivillta , the Jesuit magazine published with the approval of the Vatican did call for continued secrecy regarding the transfer of priests who abused. The article was not approved by Ratzinger’s congregation but by another.

As a hypothetical, it would be interesting to know what the Vatican has known about abuse and when they knew it. But I think that is too big a concept for the present administration of our church to handle.

Perhaps, the next pope will have the energy and will to clean up the issue once and for all.

Peace
 
40.png
yinekka:
An anti Catholic who posts on a Catholic discussion forum here in Australia wrote today about Cardinal Ratzinger.:

“He was the leading member of the Curia, who told the American Bishops that they didn’t need to turn over evidence to the State, regarding files on Priest/Pedophiles. He was also the one, if I’m not mistaken, who told our bishops to hide documents in the Cardinal’s Office, who is similar to the Vatican’s Ambassador to the States. I think that his name was Bequavilla, but I could have him confused with someone else.”

I asked her for her source and she said The Boston Globe. Can anyone shed some light on the allegations? If she is incorrect I will apply to the coadministrator of the board to have her banned because this amounts to libel and slander.
Click to expand...
First you require her to provide the EXACT link to this supposed statement. Then you tell her to provide an official Church document where Ratzinger says this. If it’s not on a Church document, then it’s not official.

Just because the Boston Globe says something, hardly means it’s true.

SV
 
40.png
yinekka:
I asked her for her source and she said The Boston Globe.
Click to expand...
I searched the Boston Globe site. There were 16 articles including the name Ratzinger, dating back to 1985. I read all 16. None of them named Ratzinger as having that position.

Ask her for a link to her source.

One possibility, but my memory is poor so I cannot remember details, has to do with the policy document. Last summer around June, the US Bishops came out with a document on how to handle sex abuse cases. A couple of months later, the Vatican ordered changes in the process to make it more fair for accused priests.

Canon law is designed to have a fair process where an accused can have an advocate (similar to defense lawyer) and a trial, where they get the chance to defend themselves. The USCCB had basically read the negative public opinion polls and had produced a process that included no capability for an accused priest to defend himself. The Vatican ordered changes in the process to make it more fair to accused priests.

Whether those changes included withholding case files or not, I really do not recall.
 
RFK thank you for doing the search. If this person doesn’t come up with the correct source so that I can check it out I am going to try and have her banned from the board. I may have no luck though because the board is dissenting and the administrators use her and some others to bag the Church for them. :mad:
 
It is likely that the feisty William Donohue of the Catholic League will know just which documents are being referred to or alleged/mis-alleged. I am not sure whether he limits his defense efforts to the U.S., but try his web site.
 
40.png
yinekka:
RFK thank you for doing the search. If this person doesn’t come up with the correct source so that I can check it out I am going to try and have her banned from the board. I may have no luck though because the board is dissenting and the administrators use her and some others to bag the Church for them. :mad:
Click to expand...
At the least try and get her to retract the statment, if they won’t do anything else.

SV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top