The Pope Covered Up Pedophile Priests

[manasecret]

Did anyone know that the then-future pope Joseph Ratzinger was being sued in a Houston federal court some years ago for international conspiracy to obstruct justice? And that he was then elected pope just so he could get diplomatic immunity as head-of-state?

That's what Daniel Shea, the man behind the suit, believes, and I think I believe.

The Man Who Sued the Pope

According to Shea, the cardinals elected Ratzinger Pope to give him the immunity that would enable him to avoid answering any questions concerning his knowledge about and handling of sex abuse cases in Houston's St. Francis De Sales church in the mid-1990s.

In fact, Shea believes that what he started with the lawsuit may eventually result in the destruction of the entire Roman Catholic Church.

Dan Shea, a former Catholic deacon, has come a long way from the seminary. Whether that's a long way up or a long way down depends on where today's Catholic Church stands in your eyes. In the last five years, Shea has cracked wise about the Pope being gay and a drag queen in front of the Italian Parliament. He got a bishop to declare in open court that it was the church's position that minor children were accomplices in their own molestation. He looked another bishop dead in the eye and told him to kiss his ass.

So it's safe to say, he evokes strong emotions while expressing his beliefs.

In Doe et al v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Galveston-Houston et al, Shea and Khan Merritt allege that a letter then-Cardinal Ratzinger sent to every Catholic bishop on May 18, 2001, constituted an international conspiracy to obstruct justice. This official Vatican document Ratzinger penned in his role as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dealt with official church procedure in dealing with clerical sex abuse cases.

Not only did this letter contain the cardinal's current thinking on the subject, it also cited in a footnote a top-secret 1962 Vatican document Shea would eventually flush out.

This 48-year-old document, informally known as Crimen Sollicitationis, considered a smoking gun in some quarters, contains written orders from the Vatican laying bare a system for protecting child molesters. To Shea, Crimen is more than a smoking gun, it is "a nuclear bomb."

Joseph Ratzinger needs to resign. He's poisoning the Catholic Church from within.

[Professor S]

In fairness, these claims are coming from the plaintiff in a lawsuit. Of course he's going to assume the worst. Also, while I do believe that Ratzinger covered up the scandal, I also believe the many accounts that he has worked to reform the situation from the inside. Does that make the cover-up better? No. But understanding how the mind of the Vatican works, I'm not surprised by their actions.

What are the laws of a nation compared to the laws of God and His retribution/absolution? The rulings of a government court system mean nothing to them.

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

In fairness, these claims are coming from the plaintiff in a lawsuit. Of course he's going to assume the worst. Also, while I do believe that Ratzinger covered up the scandal, I also believe the many accounts that he has worked to reform the situation from the inside. Does that make the cover-up better? No. But understanding how the mind of the Vatican works, I'm not surprised by their actions.

What are the laws of a nation compared to the laws of God and His retribution/absolution? The rulings of a government court system mean nothing to them.

The rulings of a government court system does mean something to them, otherwise there would be no need for a cover-up.

While certainly the plaintiff, Daniel Shea is going to assume the worst, you have to admit it's a good conspiracy theory with some hard evidence pointing to the conclusion that he was elected Pope to give him diplomatic immunity.

But, as far as the two letters that the article references -- Ratzinger's letter to all Catholic bishops from May 18, 2001, and the 48-year-old document Crimen Sollicitationis it cites in its footnotes -- those are hard facts. I'd like to read them in full myself (I believe both are in Latin, so it makes it slightly more difficult, having to rely on someone's translation), but if they're at all what the article makes them sound like, it sure sounds like a cover-up to me, and across international borders, which I'm guessing makes it an international conspiracy to obstruct justice.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by manasecret

The rulings of a government court system does mean something to them, otherwise there would be no need for a cover-up.

IMO they covered it up to avoid losing their flock, not because of government legal action.