![hans gay jail rape gay xxx hans gay jail rape gay xxx](https://static.theprint.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Imran-Khan.jpg)
You have a choice during this state visit: stand with Ratzinger, or with his Catholic victims. I know this may cause you pain, but it is nothing compared to the pain of a child raped by his priest or a woman infected with HIV because Ratzinger said condoms make Aids worse, or a gay person stripped of basic legal rights. If your faith pulls you towards him rather than the victims, shouldn't that make you think again about your faith? Doesn't it suggest that faith, in fact, distorts your moral faculties? If you turn out to celebrate him, you will be endorsing his crimes. I know, for many British Catholics, their faith makes them think of something warm, good and kind - a beloved grandmother or the gentler sayings of Jesus. Meanwhile, Ratzinger calls consensual gay sex 'evil' and has been at the forefront of trying to prevent laws that establish basic rights for gay people. In the Congo, I watched as a Catholic priest said condoms contain 'tiny holes' that 'help' the HIV virus - not an unusual event. His defenders say he is simply preaching abstinence outside marriage and monogamy within it, so if people are following his advice they can't contract HIV.īut in order to reinforce the first part of his message, he spreads overt lies, claiming condoms don't work. When he visited Africa in March 2009, he said that condoms 'increase the problem' of HIV/Aids. What could be more anti-Catholic than to cheer the man who facilitated the rape of your children? What could be more pro-Catholic than to try to bring him to justice? There are people who will tell you that these criticisms of Ratzinger are 'anti-Catholic'.
![hans gay jail rape gay xxx hans gay jail rape gay xxx](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/04/14/07/56599895-0-image-a-10_1649918768433.jpg)
When Ratzinger issued supposedly ground-breaking new rules against paedophilia earlier this year, he put it on a par with. He still thinks the law doesn't apply to his institution. He called them 'deplorable' and his spokesman said: 'There is no precedent for this, not even under communist regimes.' If Ratzinger was repentant, he would surely have congratulated them. Once the evidence of an international-conspiracy to cover up abuse became incontrovertible to any reasonable observer, Ratzinger's defenders shifted tack and said he was sorry and would change his behaviour.īut this June, the Belgian police told the Catholic Church it could no longer 'investigate' child rape on Belgian soil internally, and seized the documents relating to child abuse from the offices of a Church commission. That year, the Vatican lauded Bishop Pierre Pican for refusing to inform the local French police about a paedophile priest, telling him: 'I congratulate you for not denouncing a priest to the civil administration.' The commendation was copied to all bishops. completely suppressed by perpetual silence'. In 2001, Ratzinger wrote to every bishop in the world, telling them allegations of abuse must be dealt with 'in absolute secrecy. Who knows what remains in the closed files? These are only the cases that have leaked out. Ratzinger advised him to take a 'spiritual retreat'. But Murphy wrote to Ratzinger saying he was ill, so it was cancelled. Ratzinger never replied.Įight months later, there was a secret canonical 'trial'. His rapes often began in the confessional. Murphy, who had raped and tortured up to 200 deaf and mute children at a Catholic boarding school. In 1996, the Archbishop of Milwaukee appealed to Ratzinger to defrock Father Lawrence C. Ratzinger thinks the 'good of the universal Church' - your Church - lies not in protecting your children from being raped, but in protecting the rapists from punishment. Think about what Ratzinger's statement reveals. Kiesle went on to rape many more children. Ratzinger refused for years, explaining that he was thinking of the 'good of the universal Church' and of the 'detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke among the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age' of the priest involved. in 1985, a group of American bishops wrote to Ratzinger begging him to defrock a priest called Father Stephen Kiesle, who had tied up and molested two young boys in a rectory. He was last accused of sexual abuse in 1998. Yet he kept being moved from parish to parish, even after a sex crime conviction in 1986. The psychiatrist who saw him, Werner Huth, told the Church unequivocally that he was 'untreatable must never be allowed to work with children again'. Instead, Hullermann was referred for 'counselling'. Hullermann had already been accused of raping three boys. In Germany in the early Eighties, Father Peter Hullermann was moved to a diocese run by Ratzinger. But honourable Catholics have leaked some of them anyway. He refuses to let any police officer see the Vatican's documentation, even now. The Church insisted all cases be kept from the police and dealt with by their own 'canon' law - which can 'punish' child rapists only to prayer, penitence or, on rare occasions, defrocking.
#HANS GAY JAIL RAPE GAY XXX FREE#
He let priests go free to rape again and again