photobucket

Let me say this about that.

Joe Ratzinger was just a teenager living near the German – Austrian border when World War II broke out.  As a German citizen, he joined the Hitler Youth organization in 1941 and eventually served in the German Army as an anti-aircraft gunner.  Later, he was given the job of planting tank mines in Hungary.

Today, Joe claims that he never agreed with any of the Nazi doctrine, even though there is scant evidence that he actively rebelled against it.  Indeed, his position on the subject seems quite accommodating, given his membership in the Hitler Youth organization and the German Army. 

Ratzinger supports his claim of dissent by pointing out the fact that he deserted from the German Army in 1945.  This seems to add some credibility to his stated position of Nazi dissent – until one finds out that…    Ratzinger deserted from the German Army within only a few days of Hitler killing himself – an act that could be interpreted more as saving his ass before possibly being tried as a war criminal, rather than an act of defiance against the Nazis.

So, what’s the big deal about some old German trying to whitewash his spotted past associations with Nazi Germany?  It isn’t such a big deal until you learn about Joe’s new job title:

Pope Benedict XVI

Oh, but wait, boys and girls, this story gets even better.

Some time in the late 1970′s, a Catholic priest in Germany was caught forcing an 11 year old boy to perform oral sex.  In 1980, the priest, who the Catholic Church refuses to identify even today, was ordered transferred from the place the incident occurred, to a different church in Munich (but within the same diocese) in an effort for rehabilitation.  The priest was not arrested, he was not punished, and he was not removed from the church.  He was essentially transferred and given a new job.  The Archbishop of the Munich diocese who approved the action (inaction) was, at the time, one   Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger.

Ratzinger, (now Pope Benedict XVI) has been unable to deny his approval of the decision due to the fact that the Munich diocese had already released the details to the press – an apparent oversight by the Vatican censors.

In 1985, the same priest was again accused of sexual abuses, this time so severe that he was arrested by German authorities.  He was convicted and sentenced to five years in jail – which was suspended.  Then he was instructed to undergo ‘therapy’, apparently because it had been so effective when given the same instructions by the future Pope.  Interestingly, this priest is still …… a priest ….. in the Catholic Church, in the same diocese formerly run by Joe Ratzinger.

To date, thousands of people have come forward to report sexual abuse by Catholic Priests, not only in Germany, but Ireland, Switzerland, Italy,  Brazil, Australia, the Philippines, the U.S. and God knows where else.  Not surprisingly, considering his past, Pope Benedict XVI has refused to punish any of the priests, remove them from the Catholic Church, or even comment on the crimes.

China, often called an atheist nation by the Catholic Church, punishes ‘vicious’ rape of a minor by putting the criminal to death.  The Catholic Church, with all it’s holy and righteous dogma, punishes the same crime by providing therapy –  for the criminal.  Sadly, the victim must make do with an apology.

To end this diatribe against Catholic Church’s acquiescence to their own priests’ sexual abuse of children, I will quote a statement from the church sponsored “Catholic Education Research Center”.  In an article entitled “10 Myths About Priestly Pedophilia” released in 2002, this organization offered a defense against those calling for punishment of sexual abuse crimes against children by Catholic Priests – and I quote:

“The vast majority of clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia.  Rather, they involve ephebophilia – homosexual attraction to adolescent boys.   While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2% – comparable to the rate of married men.”

This is their defense?  Simply unbelievable.

And, that’s all I have to say about that.

Shambo