Gloria.tv And Coronavirus: Huge Amount Of Traffic, Standstill in Donations
Clicks1.5K
en.news
3

Article about "Ratzinger And the Pedophile Priest" is a Flop

The German website Correctiv.org (February 18), funded by oligarchs and the German state, warmed up the case of the homosexual German priest Peter H.

H. is called a "paedophile", although he is a homosexual with an interest in adolescent boys.

H. was ordained in 1973 for Essen Diocese. After homosexual abuses, which, at the time, were taken lightly by the media and even praised, he had to undergo therapy in Munich in the 1980s.

In 1984, H. was sentenced to a suspended sentence and a fine for having abused twelve adolescents.

Until 2008 he was an extremely popular pastor in Garching an der Alz, a liberal clergyman and carnival speaker, who was more an actor than a priest.

Liberal Munich Auxiliary Bishop Heinrich von Soden-Fraunhofen (+2000), a leading fighter against the Catholic Opus Angelorum, moved after his retirement to H.'s parish, and was involved in pastoral work.

Correctiv.org caricatures the liberal von Soden as "close confidant of Ratzinger", which is not true.

The article’s highlight is the statement that "for the first time" a "personal meeting" between H. and Ratzinger, a "memorable encounter", can be proven.

According to the article, Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to visit the terminally ill von Soden in 2000 who did not open the door. So, Ratzinger turned to H., the parish-priest, and asked him to call Soden.

However, this is fake news. Today, the former Benedict XVI denied that he met H. in 2000.
"There is no "former" Benedict xvi." Thors Catholic Hammer

If you're right, then why don't you show us all a photo of "Benedict XVI" dated after February 11, 2013 wearing his Papal Ring? The one that says "Benedict XVI" on it? This one: www.pope2you.net/…/papal-ring.jpg

Better still, show us a photo of him wearing his Papal Ring in the same photo with "anypope Francis"? You can't and you …More
"There is no "former" Benedict xvi." Thors Catholic Hammer

If you're right, then why don't you show us all a photo of "Benedict XVI" dated after February 11, 2013 wearing his Papal Ring? The one that says "Benedict XVI" on it? This one: www.pope2you.net/…/papal-ring.jpg

Better still, show us a photo of him wearing his Papal Ring in the same photo with "anypope Francis"? You can't and you won't because Benedict isn't Pope.

"That never really happened as everyone can see that he still utilizes papal titles and forms of address and attire etc."

That's a lie. He doesn't use the papal title "Benedict XVI" anymore. He's Pope Emeritus Benedict now. As for attire, where's the ring? It's a special ring. A seal ring used for embossing in wax only official documents only the Pope can sign..

The Pope must wear the Papal Ring and any photo you post of Benedict wearing a flattened band is not the papal ring. This isn't it:
stmedia.stimg.co/ows_157896014230332.jpg

Neither is this:
media2.s-nbcnews.com/…/140427-pope-fra…

Put up or shut up, Crackers. Let's see if something like this sounds familiar. "Post ONE photo of Pope Emeritus Benedict wearing his Papal Ring. You have not done so, blah-blah-blah... ":D
Here's a funny story that makes us laugh and tells us absolutely nothing: info-zero!
There is no “former” Benedict xvi.
He still lives as of Feb 20th 202O Anno Domini.
(I suspect you may be one of these people lulled into accepting the story that Pope Benedict xvi resigned the papacy?
That never really happened as everyone can see that he still utilizes papal titles and forms of address and attire etc.
Any person who genuinely and authentically retires from the papacy does not …More
There is no “former” Benedict xvi.
He still lives as of Feb 20th 202O Anno Domini.
(I suspect you may be one of these people lulled into accepting the story that Pope Benedict xvi resigned the papacy?
That never really happened as everyone can see that he still utilizes papal titles and forms of address and attire etc.
Any person who genuinely and authentically retires from the papacy does not do that since it proves a substantial defect in intention)