The original video where these allegations surfaced is here


For a bit of context and background you may try the banned Discovery Channel docuмentary Conspiracy of Silence.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=conspiracy+of+silence&sm=3

Unfortunately these things are hard to prove but there is too much circuмstantial evidence to pass it off as far fetched. The revelations regarding Jimmy Saville, mentor to Prince Charles, is enough to show that perversion is pretty common in high society.

there is also the Jeff Gannon story from a while back, his mother wrote a book called why Johnny can't come home. See, Johnny Gosh was a paper boy who was abducted when he was around 12 years old. Now many think that Johnny Gosh reappeared as John Guckert and later Jeff Gannon, a male porn star who was a member of the white house press club. More on that here.
http://www.rense.com/general67/gannn.htm

Anyhow, another of the alleged witnesses from the first video, Paul Bonnaci claims to have abducted Johnny Gosch, when he (Bonnaci)was also a boy.

And there are a lot of similar stories, take Cathy O'Brian for instance. I mean, it's too sick to go into detail. I have a hard time believing that these people are making this up, all making the same allegations. She said her father put her in a program so he could avoid going to jail called project Monarch where she was abused with the specific intent of fracturing her mind. That is, they intended to create a multiple personality so that she could be used like a robot to compromise powerful people or perhaps regular people who, after they were compromised would be put in powerful positions.

Could this be the case with Ratzinger. Could he have even grown up in one of these situations like these other kids, of ritualistic abuse?

I personally questioned whether it was wise to bring these allegations up, but now that it's out in the open maybe they will get to the bottom of it.

Its irresponsible for Fr. Pfieffer to come to these sorts of conclusions, based on this evidence alone. It makes him incredulous. He is incredulous, and loses more and more credibility, day by day.

Allow me to say, that I don't find this to be the case with Bishop Williamson. This isn't about cօռspιʀαcιҽs, and my lack of belief in them. There is a difference in the way both men approach and present this information. One is, for lack of a better word, responsible (+W), one is not (Fr.P). This is not good.

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: s2srea

Its irresponsible for Fr. Pfieffer to come to these sorts of conclusions, based on this evidence alone. It makes him incredulous. He is incredulous, and loses more and more credibility, day by day.

Allow me to say, that I don't find this to be the case with Bishop Williamson. This isn't about cօռspιʀαcιҽs, and my lack of belief in them. There is a difference in the way both men approach and present this information. One is, for lack of a better word, responsible (+W), one is not (Fr.P). This is not good.

No, the difference is Fr. P says it as he thinks it is while Bp. W puts ideas into people's heads and then retracts them to protect his own personal comfort.  His retraction is in those few words  he keeps repeating: ".... but I could be wrong". Notice the difference: Fr. P is positive and serious, Bp. W is canny and somewhat tongue in cheek. Fr. P will bear the brunt of his actions (people here are now  attacking him), while Bp. W will slide out of his after making the bullets for others to fire (he is a bishop afterall!). The important thing is what an audience does with the information. Ratzinger is no stranger to ritual invention; he may have found the Bohemia Grove antics involving altars and sacrafices fascinating. It is afterall his department. Fr, P will jump at  the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: what prelates and politicians get up to together when off duty. Bp. W will on the other hand be conscious of his own vaulted position and prefer to permit the hierarchy some latitude of behaviour.      

Yes, one takes the shotgun approach while the other tosses the grenade and ducks.
But really, upholders and promoters of truth do not speak of things based upon rumors, half truths, and personalized characterizations of facts.

 :dancing-banana:
Has anyone asked Fr. Pfeiffer about this?  It might be a better approach than first condemning him.  See the thread re:Latest SSPX poison...It seems Fr. Chazal has been unjustly condenmed for risking his life to bring the Mass and Sacraments to souls.

Nothing surprises me anymore.  I just wonder if hell is deep enough for these...

"Hear, righteous John. As big a stone as a man of thirty years old can roll, and let go down into the depth, even falling down for twenty years will not arrive at the bottom of Hades; as the prophet David said before, And He made darkness His secret place."

Quote from: J.Paul

Referring to the header of this thread, where are the facts which prove the allegations or where are the facts that deny the allegation?

I suppose you want a video of the said event. Most criminals do not provide law enforcement with docuмented proof of their crimes, motives, methods, etc hence most verdicts are decided by circuмstantial evidence.

What I meant by "facts" in the original post was: what are the facts surrounding the allegation? In the other thread a short clip of Fr. Pfeiffer speaking was provided and a discussion ensued about whether Fr had crossed a line without any examination of what was alleged to have happened at Bohemian Grove.

And that was the point of starting this thread. Hoping to get a bit of a clearer picture via analysis of the statements of the accusers, their backgrounds, and similar situations. Based on what I know already I'd say father was a bit reckless but not overly so seeing as the direct testimony/accusations against ratzinger has been on youtube for the last 2 years and has 100,000 views.

Not to mention the UN came out last week and said...
"The UN's Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has denounced the Vatican for adopting policies that allowed priests to sɛҳuąƖly abuse thousands of children."
http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/2014/02/un-vatican-rights-of-the-child/

We are not interested in what the Un says. They serve other masters and another agenda.
What I would wish to know is by what provable and solid facts does a priest publicly accuse a pope of such a deed? If he had them in hand at the time, all well and good, and if not, it is deplorable.
We await someone revealing which was the case.

There is no doubt that Ratzinger is a, rosicrucian the spiritual arm of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. He is much higher than a 33 degree. They believe in Gnosticism as taught by the ancient Egyptians which is the core of all Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

Unless you have seen and talked with people @ this level it is hard to fathom how truly powerful they are and why they think the way they do. Soul possession plays such a great part of it and because of their 'cosmic" belief they do believe they will triumph in the final battle.

There are two Rosicrucian orders the first is a front organization and the other is very secret and well hidden,not to be known by civilians.

http://www.padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/The_satanic_miter_of_BXVI.pdf