Oakland Priest’s Accuser Describes Sexual Abuse

times ^ | April 11, 2010 | JESSE McKINLEY and KATIE ZEZIMA

[JoeProBono]

A San Francisco woman who says she was molested by the Oakland priest at the center of a case that has raised questions about Pope Benedict XVI’s handling of sexually abusive clergy members described in vivid terms on Sunday how she was sexually abused and intimidated by her attacker.

The woman, Melinda Costello, said she had been abused for several years, beginning at age 7, as a parishioner in nearby Fremont, Calif., where the Rev. Stephen Kiesle was working at a church as a seminarian in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

[JoeProBono]

[JoeProBono]

Local Woman Asks for Pope’s Resignation

“Another woman, the latest to accuse the Pope of covering up the molestation of church pastors, says she was abused by a former East Bay priest. She is demanding the resignation of Pope Benedict the Sixteenth”

“Melinda Costello, who now lives in San Francisco, was a little girl when she says she molested by Stephen Kiesele, the priest at her church in Fremont. It took almost 20 years for Kiesele to be defrocked even though he was accused of molesting others.

Now Costello is the latest to express her shock that then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now the Pope— didn’t move quickly to remove Kiesele from the priesthood.

“I am appalled to find out that Ratzinger knew about Kiesele and that he did absolutely nothing about it for four or five years,” she said. “He was more concerned about the face of the church than about children of the church.”

[lastchance]

Would the facts of this case interest you? Or do you prefer the NYT spin?

[HospiceNurse]

How do you defend yourself against charges that are 40 years old?

We had a beloved priest that was accused in this way. Luckily for him, he wasn’t at the school the years the alleged victim was. She apparently lied or had him confused with someone else. If he had been at the school, his life would have ended even though he was innocent.

[Vidocq]

Didn't know that Kiesele was an equal opportunity molester

[little jeremiah]

Good article.

Another point (and I know there are tons of articles on this topic lately and I can’t read them all) - many of the boys molested by priests were the same age or OLDER than the boy that Kevin Jennings advised about having sodomy with a man he met in the Greyhound Bus Station! That boy was 15 years old and Jennings just hoped he was doing “safe sex”.

So why don’t they go after Jennings the “safe schools” Czar, NAMBLA and GLSEN??

[Justice Department]

The facts mam, just the facts

[Steelfish]

So why don’t they go after Jennings the “safe schools” Czar, NAMBLA and GLSEN?

That would destroy the mission statements of the NYTimes, LATimes CBS, etc.

[little jeremiah]

What to speak of the majority of reporters...

[count-your-change]

Yet Lawler gives credit where credit is due to the mass media for calling about a dozen bishops to account for their gross misconduct when their brother bishops would not.

Sometimes by accident the media does what it should, usually poorly, but the Catholic Church can hardly say much about others abandoning standards.

[Raul Raul]

The New York Times pays people to make up stories.

Don’t think they’ve learned their lesson do you?

[srweaver]

That would be GREAT, but I’m not holding my breath.

[JoeProBono]

Hartford, Connecticut - “A bill in Connecticut’s legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state’s Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.”

[Steelfish]

Wonder what this bill states. Sometime charges and claims are made several decades after the incident that are difficult to verify, investigate, or prove. Often the mere charges alone are enough to destroy a person especially if falsely made.

In those states when homosexuality was a crime like in Texas (before it was declared unconstitutional) the statute of limitations was one year. Had Texas wanted to lift the statute of limitations at that time there would have been mass protests by the gay and lesbian community.

[Talisker]

Sometime charges and claims are made several decades after the incident that are difficult to verify, investigate, or prove. Often the mere charges alone are enough to destroy a person especially if falsely made.

That's the problem right there. On the one hand, victims are often too young or intimidated or traumatized to press charges at the time. On the other hand, by the time the damage is released enough to enable the filing of charges, the evidence chain (if there ever was a verifiable one) is long gone - but the accusations can still destroy the innocent.

Bad all around. I see no clear answer except that the law much somehow remain locked to evidence, especially if the statute of limitations is extended.

[lastchance]

Usually the objection is not over the lifting of SOL but that such lifting specifically targets the Church.

[Steelfish]

Well said.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

One honest priest. It's a start...

...Her account came on the same day a priest in Massachusetts used his sermon to condemn the church’s handling of the broader sexual abuse scandal, describing some in the clergy as “felons” and suggesting that Benedict resign.

“We must personally and collectively declare that we very much doubt the veracity of the pope and those of church authority who are defending him or even falling on the sword on his behalf,” said the priest, the Rev. James J. Scahill of St. Michael’s Parish in East Longmeadow.

“It is beginning to become evident that for decades, if not centuries, church leadership covered up the abuse of children and minors to protect its institutional image and the image of priesthood...”