Backboards: 
Posts: 155

re: Paterno. It's amazing how well this parallels the case of Father Maciel and Pope John Paul II.

Father Maciel was the founder of my little brother's order, and they worshipped him as a saint, which frankly always creeped me out. He was favored by the Pope, presumably because he was conservative, brought in money, and recruited new priests.

Over the course of decades, complaints came in to the Vatican about alleged abuse. Under JP and previous popes, these allegations were not fully investigated and/or acted upon. Then when Benedict went into office, the Vatican investigated Maciel and it turned out he had two common law wives and several children. The Vatican also decided the abuse allegations were true. Benedict ordered him to step down and live the rest of his life in seclusion and penitence, then ordered a full investigation of the order.

I've been trying to find out whether JP knew Maciel was an abuser. Funny thing, just as with Paterno, it's VERY hard to find the smoking gun that proves he knew. There's tons of other information out there, and it's clear JP knew of the accusations, but then the defenders say "Well, he didn't know the FULL EXTENT" of the abuse. Just like with Paterno.

Well, in both cases, I am not buying it. I think they knew, and they were VERY careful not to let on that they knew.


Post a message   top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.