Criminal Charges Against Joseph Ratzinger
These charges were submitted to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. It is a matter of crimes against humanity.
Charges are brought against three crimes committed against humanity, for which Dr. Joseph Ratzinger, as former cardinal and present-day pope, is criminally liable:
Charges are brought against three crimes committed against humanity, for which Dr. Joseph Ratzinger, as former cardinal and present-day pope, is criminally liable:
- the preservation and leadership of a worldwide totalitarian regime of coercion, which subjugates its members with terrifying and health-endangering threats,
- the adherence to a fatal forbiddance of the use of condoms, even when the danger of HIV-AIDS infection exists, and
- the establishment and maintenance of a worldwide system of cover-up of the sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests and their preferential treatment, which aids and abets ever new crimes.
The charges are directed against three worldwide crimes, which until
now have not been denounced merely because they stemmed from an
institution headed by the “highest dignitaries,” who appear to be far
above criminal acts. The traditional reverence toward “ecclesiastical
authority” has clouded the sense of right and wrong.
If, by way of massive psychological pressure, a new religious group were to force its members to integrate their newborn into the group, in order to finance the latter its whole life long and to orient itself in everything according to the directives of the group, it would be called a “sect.” It is possible the state would dissolve the group and punish the “sect leaders” on grounds of coercion and extortion, even more so, if the group would not tolerate anyone leaving, instead hindering this under threat of severest punishment, thus giving rise to serious emotional disturbances and impairment of the freedom of development in many of its members.
Under the same facts and circumstances, can this be any different merely because it concerns an organization that acts in the same way not only toward a few, but worldwide, calling itself the “Roman Catholic Church” and constantly referring to religious freedom, while setting “sect commissioners” onto those of different faith? It is not different, but people have simply become accustomed to it. However, since July 1, 2002, this inurement is no longer admissible. On this day, the statute for the International Criminal Court came into effect, making crimes against humanity a punishable offense.
If, by way of massive psychological pressure, a new religious group were to force its members to integrate their newborn into the group, in order to finance the latter its whole life long and to orient itself in everything according to the directives of the group, it would be called a “sect.” It is possible the state would dissolve the group and punish the “sect leaders” on grounds of coercion and extortion, even more so, if the group would not tolerate anyone leaving, instead hindering this under threat of severest punishment, thus giving rise to serious emotional disturbances and impairment of the freedom of development in many of its members.
Under the same facts and circumstances, can this be any different merely because it concerns an organization that acts in the same way not only toward a few, but worldwide, calling itself the “Roman Catholic Church” and constantly referring to religious freedom, while setting “sect commissioners” onto those of different faith? It is not different, but people have simply become accustomed to it. However, since July 1, 2002, this inurement is no longer admissible. On this day, the statute for the International Criminal Court came into effect, making crimes against humanity a punishable offense.
If a coercive sect of the kind described above were widespread in
present-day Africa and its members were forbidden the use of condoms
under threat of severe punishment, transmission of the HIV-AIDS virus
and the deaths caused by this would be attributed to the sect leaders,
and charges would be brought against them. Can this be any different
simply because the coercive sect calls itself a “church” and its head
claims to be infallible?
If, in a worldwide coercive sect, hundreds of thousands of children were sexually abused and the crimes covered up and prosecution called off at the behest of the sect leader, this criminal organization and its leader would be put on trial. Can this be any different merely because this organization calls itself a “church” and the command to be silent about the crimes does not come from a mafia boss, but is pronounced by the pope? It is no different, but it is simply centuries of becoming inured to a pedophile priesthood and the power of its high priests. Since the statutory offense of crimes against humanity exists, this “looking the other way” is no longer admissible.
If, in a worldwide coercive sect, hundreds of thousands of children were sexually abused and the crimes covered up and prosecution called off at the behest of the sect leader, this criminal organization and its leader would be put on trial. Can this be any different merely because this organization calls itself a “church” and the command to be silent about the crimes does not come from a mafia boss, but is pronounced by the pope? It is no different, but it is simply centuries of becoming inured to a pedophile priesthood and the power of its high priests. Since the statutory offense of crimes against humanity exists, this “looking the other way” is no longer admissible.
No comments:
Post a Comment