Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AP EXCLUSIVE: Future pope stalled pedophile case (California priest was eventually defrocked)
AP on Yahoo ^ | 4/9/10 | Gillian Flaccus - ap

Posted on 04/09/2010 11:02:30 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

LOS ANGELES – The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including "the good of the universal church," according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.

The correspondence, obtained by The Associated Press, is the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office.

The letter, signed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was typed in Latin and is part of years of correspondence between the Diocese of Oakland and the Vatican about the proposed defrocking of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle.

The Vatican refused to comment on the contents of the letter Friday, but a spokesman confirmed it bore Ratzinger's signature.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: benedict; benedictxvi; california; catholic; kiesle; oakland; pedophile; pedophilepriests; pedophiles; pope; ratzinger; scandal; stalled; stephenkiesle; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last

1 posted on 04/09/2010 11:02:30 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Please read the entire article before ya rip the Vatican.


2 posted on 04/09/2010 11:03:35 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard .. Chuck DeVore - CA Senator. Believe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Salvation; Petronski; narses

Ping of interest.


3 posted on 04/09/2010 11:06:14 AM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007 (To view the FR@Alabama ping list, click on my profile!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
WE should round up the anti catholic haters and their antisemitic brothers in arms and ship them off to Iran to live with their totally screwed up Muslim brothers.
4 posted on 04/09/2010 11:06:57 AM PDT by Hans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I gotta tell you that I don’t like what I’m reading, and I also like less, in light of this, that Il Papa moved the metropolitan* (Levada) into his former office at the CDC.

(*Oakland is a suffragan diocese in the Metropolitan of the archdiocese of San Francisco.)


5 posted on 04/09/2010 11:11:14 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

AP has ignored 40 years of a much larger scale abuse in America’s Public Schools.


6 posted on 04/09/2010 11:12:50 AM PDT by G Larry (DNC is comprised of REGRESSIVES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Who believes the timing around easter is a mere coincidence?


7 posted on 04/09/2010 11:22:45 AM PDT by Walkingfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I read the article.

There is either something going on here with at least some of these accusations being credible or this is one of the most highly coordinated and cynical attacks on the papacy since Humanae vitae.

8 posted on 04/09/2010 11:23:16 AM PDT by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hans

“....ship them off to Iran to live with their totally screwed up Muslim brothers.”

.
Why ship them all the way to Iran? Their totally screwed up Muslim brothers are living right here.


9 posted on 04/09/2010 11:26:18 AM PDT by 353FMG (What else can Islam possibly contribute to America other than its destruction?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

This renewed assault on the Pope orchestrated largely by the NYT should be taken for exactly what it is: An effort to destroy the traditional Catholic Church and make it little different the mainline Protestant religions.

Because the Pope is staunch traditionalist and supports the efforts of traditional Catholics, he has come into the crosshairs of the Left.

Most of the cases we read in the paper about abusive priests happened decades ago and the depraved priests have since been removed from their ministries. I support punishing ALL child molestors to the fullest extent of the law.

But for people who ARE truly concerned about this issue, you should focus most of your attention and energy where the problem is mostly occurring these days: In our public schools.

I think the reforms of Vatican II greatly diminished the standards and discipline of the Catholic Church. While it is true that pedophile priests existed in the Church prior to Vatican II in 1963, the vast majority of priests involved came into the Church after the Second Vatican Council. Standards were lowered and a number of depraved individuals entered into the priesthood who had no business being there in the first place.

Since the pedophile priest scandal erupted, the Church has in fact implemented comprehensive reforms designed to prevent this from occurring again. Candidates for vocations are now subject to thorough psychiatric review and screened to ensure they are capable of celibate life.

I am a Eucharistic Minister at my parish. And even my archdiocese, mere volunteers such as myself were subject to intense training on child sexual abuse and recognizing its symptoms. I can only imagine the intensive screening and training candidates for religious orders receive these days.

Of course we are ALL sinners. The Catholic Church is a man-made institution. There are always temptations. There is always weakness and sin. A few rotten apples that slip through the cracks always cast a negative shadow on the overwhelming majority of priests and nuns who are outstanding selfless servants of God who devote their whole lives to the Church and serving others.

So let us always be cognizant of the true agenda of those who ceaselessly attack the Holy Father. There agenda is to destroy the traditional Holy Catholic Church.


10 posted on 04/09/2010 11:30:01 AM PDT by Gen. Burkhalter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen. Burkhalter; G Larry

Sorry but “It happened a long time ago” and “everybody does it” are really piss poor excuses.

The point is, the current sitting Pope appears to be no different than Cardinal Law when it comes to the lax punishment and or non-removal of pedophile priests.

You can call me a bigot, liar, anti-Catholic, slanderer, etc. all you want but the RCC has a real problem on their hands and sticking their head in the sand and blaming others is not going to make it go away.


11 posted on 04/09/2010 11:37:18 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cardhu
Ratzinger bombshell ping!

In the November 1985 letter, Ratzinger says the arguments for removing Kiesle are of "grave significance" but added that such actions required very careful review and more time. He also urged the bishop to provide Kiesle with "as much paternal care as possible" while awaiting the decision, according to a translation for AP by Professor Thomas Habinek, chairman of the University of Southern California Classics Department. But the future pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the "good of the universal church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age." Kiesle was 38 at the time. Kiesle had been sentenced in 1978 to three years' probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young boys in a San Francisco Bay area church rectory. As his probation ended in 1981, Kiesle asked to leave the priesthood and the diocese submitted papers to Rome to defrock him.

Un-fing believable!
12 posted on 04/09/2010 11:44:24 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gen. Burkhalter
I think the reforms of Vatican II greatly diminished the standards and discipline of the Catholic Church. While it is true that pedophile priests existed in the Church prior to Vatican II in 1963, the vast majority of priests involved came into the Church after the Second Vatican Council. Standards were lowered and a number of depraved individuals entered into the priesthood who had no business being there in the first place.

When was Vatican II wrapped up, and when would the effects have started being felt?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

13 posted on 04/09/2010 11:46:36 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

I respectfully disagree with you. While I acknowledge there was a serious problem in the Church and a lot of truly sick and depraved people slipped through the cracks, I know for a fact that reforms have been instituted and that people seeking religious orders are now subject to intense psychological and personality screening to ascertain their fitness for religious orders.

I myself, as a Church volunteer and Eucharistic Minister, was required to take a program called VIRTUS which is an extensive training and educational program on child sexual abuse. The Church IS in fact doing a better job of weeding out potential sexual deviants.


14 posted on 04/09/2010 11:48:37 AM PDT by Gen. Burkhalter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

It’s astonishing to me how normally sane people who dismiss the rants and biased reporting of the NYT and the AP will wholeheartedly believe anything anti-Catholic published by both of those rags.


15 posted on 04/09/2010 11:51:09 AM PDT by Jackson57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen. Burkhalter
The Church IS in fact doing a better job of weeding out potential sexual deviants.

We are in lock-step agreement that the church is doing a better job weeding out potential sexual deviants. But we can't dismiss these cases or the inaction or cover-up by the current leadership, i.e. Cardinal Law.
16 posted on 04/09/2010 11:51:38 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jackson57

Please tell me what part of the article is false?


17 posted on 04/09/2010 11:52:31 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TSgt
according to a translation for AP by Professor Thomas Habinek, chairman of the University of Southern California Classics Department.

Isn't this what got the NY Times in trouble in the first place by getting horrendous translations and omissions of fact? I'll wait until I see all of the facts before I believe another left-wing slant of the evidence.

18 posted on 04/09/2010 11:53:09 AM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

That’s fair.

The letter should be published as-is for review.


19 posted on 04/09/2010 11:55:24 AM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The idiot reporters who write this stuff seem to think that the only penalty available and the only way to deal with a priest of this sort is to “defrock” him.

He was suspended from exercising ministry. He was dealt with by the law.

“Defrocking” refers solely to an ecclesiastical status. It is the same as “laicization.” It is not and cannot be the chief means of rendering a sex offender incapable of abusing again. For that, other means are needed. In this case those means were in place. Get angry at instances in which those other steps were not taken and abusers abused again.

But that Cardinal Ratzinger was slow to laicize has nothing specific to do with covering up or enabling abuse.

The media bandy about words like “defrock” either out of ignorance or out of malice (in the latter case, assuming that because “to defrock” means “big-time punishment” to most ignorant fools reading this crap, therefore, not to defrock means not to punish at all.

This kind of sensationalism can only work among readers who are uninformed.

But in their uninformedness they, including some Freepers, do not hesitate to make moral judgments of apocalyptic dimensions.


20 posted on 04/09/2010 11:55:44 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSgt; Jackson57
Please tell me what part of the article is false?

How about all of the facts that in the previous "bombshell" from the NY Times where there was mistranslation and omission of importatnt information in a so-called letter obtained by them?

Computer mistranslation of key Vatican memo undercuts media criticism of Pope

21 posted on 04/09/2010 11:55:54 AM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

I agree, it is unbelievable on one level, but modus operandi on another. “The good of the church” has always been his first duty.

“As his probation ended in 1981 Kiesle asked to leave the priesthood and the diocese submitted papers to Rome to defrock him.”

Why did that not happen three years earlier?


22 posted on 04/09/2010 11:58:04 AM PDT by Cardhu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Walkingfeather

Like when the Atheists have there yearly Christmastime rant? Or Planned Parenthood’s sardonic Christmas parody?


23 posted on 04/09/2010 11:58:12 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

So the last one was mis-translated?

That’s a new one but like I said, fair is fair, show the letter for all to see and translate.


24 posted on 04/09/2010 12:00:07 PM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cardhu
Why did that not happen three years earlier?

A FReeper once told me, "the Vatican moves slow."

Interesting how the tempo has picked up under increased scrutiny?
25 posted on 04/09/2010 12:01:47 PM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cardhu
“As his probation ended in 1981 Kiesle asked to leave the priesthood and the diocese submitted papers to Rome to defrock him.”

Why did that not happen three years earlier?

Why did what not happen three years earlier?

26 posted on 04/09/2010 12:06:54 PM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Agree with frogjerk! Mistranslation a real possibility

In the AP article the AP refers to “Scandal”... The Pope wrote in LATIN...and Scandal in the Catholic Catechism means:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm


27 posted on 04/09/2010 12:09:48 PM PDT by Bulwinkle (Alec, a.k.a. Daffy Duck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

It does not looks like this man was in ANY sort of active ministry, and he was already on the books for his no contest plea of lewd behavior. This has NOTHING to do with any sort of cover up or allowing him access to children but just the decision of whether to turn him loose on the public (as the priest was actually requesting!) or keep him as a priest. Who knows the full context of this one yet? The Vatican office may have just been looking at both sides. I agree that the one line sounds like it COULD become evidence of a bad judgement call on Cardinal Ratzinger, but you can’t even compare this to the behavior of bishops that allowed priests to get shuffled around to new parishes.


28 posted on 04/09/2010 12:13:35 PM PDT by j_hig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Thank you for a clear and reasoned response.


29 posted on 04/09/2010 12:23:34 PM PDT by madprof98 ("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The Pope is alleged to be infallible yet he is a human being. The only infallible human being to ever grace the face of the earth was Jesus Christ. So much for the Pope’s infallibility. It appears that he erred, and in a way that was detrimental to the safety of children who were taught to trust their priests and other religious leaders. This scandal is a Catholic matter and it is up to Catholics to decide what they must do about it.


30 posted on 04/09/2010 12:24:38 PM PDT by Saltmeat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Wow, this sounds pretty bad. Of course, the Catholic church needed as many prior offender-pedophiles in higher office as possible.

Unbelievable. The guy admitted to tying up kids a few years before and more was coming out, but the Pope thought the pedophile needed more time with the kids, I guess.


31 posted on 04/09/2010 12:26:32 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Hypocrisy: "Animal rightists" who eat meat & pen up pets while accusing hog farmers of cruelty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
More information needs to come out about this, especially the original letter from then Card. Ratzinger. But what does seem significant is the line: "As his probation ended in 1981, Kiesle asked to leave the priesthood and the diocese submitted papers to Rome to defrock him." Thus what is being addressed her is not a question of an ecclesial penalty but a petition from Kiesle himself. The significance of this is that as an ecclesial penalty the loss of the clerical state (the proper term, not "defrock") usually is not accompanied with a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy. This dispensation is reserved the pope; thus Keisle's need to petition Rome. The granting of such a petition is normally seen as a privilege and not as a penalty.

As a ecclesial penalty Bishop Cummins could have imposed the loss of the clerical state upon Keisle himself after the finding of guilt in an ecclesial trial. Thus it would seem that what we have here is not a smoking gun against the then Card. Ratzinger but another example of an American bishop ducking his own responsibility and trying to take the easy way out by passing the buck to Rome through an administrative action.

32 posted on 04/09/2010 12:29:11 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

So are you saying that the priest was willing to leave if he could be allowed to have sex again, but The Vatican was willing to allow him to leave if he didn’t have sex again? I don’t see that mentioned anywhere.


33 posted on 04/09/2010 12:33:10 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Hypocrisy: "Animal rightists" who eat meat & pen up pets while accusing hog farmers of cruelty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk; TSgt

TSgt were having a discussion and he understood perfectly what I was referring to.

If you want to insert yourself in a discussion, then check back to see what we were talking about then you not have ask that question nor I waste time answering it.


34 posted on 04/09/2010 12:39:58 PM PDT by Cardhu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
So are you saying that the priest was willing to leave if he could be allowed to have sex again, but The Vatican was willing to allow him to leave if he didn’t have sex again?

No. The difference is between being granted a dispensation and leaving the clerical state in good standing and losing the clerical state as an imposed penalty. The proper procedure would have been Bishop Cummins dragging Keisle before his own diocesan tribunal and after a finding of guilt removing him from the clerical state as an imposed penalty, even if against his will. There was no need to petition Rome. This was just more buck passing by an American bishop.

35 posted on 04/09/2010 12:43:03 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cardhu
If you want to insert yourself in a discussion, then check back to see what we were talking about then you not have ask that question nor I waste time answering it.

If you don't want people commenting on your comment then I suggest you send a private message. This is an online forum where your messages are public and may be commented on or you may be asked a question. I cannot believe you don't understand how FR works.

36 posted on 04/09/2010 12:46:53 PM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

So the pedophile was willing to leave if left in “good standing” but was unwilling to leave if not? And The Vatican was insisting on keeping him because of his transgressions?


37 posted on 04/09/2010 12:48:39 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Hypocrisy: "Animal rightists" who eat meat & pen up pets while accusing hog farmers of cruelty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Saltmeat
The Pope is alleged to be infallible yet he is a human being. The only infallible human being to ever grace the face of the earth was Jesus Christ. So much for the Pope’s infallibility.

You need to understand what the doctrine of infallibility is and what it means. You are in error in the way that you are using the doctrine as applied to your logic.

38 posted on 04/09/2010 12:51:56 PM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Your intervention was not a comment but an unnecessary question which a cursory reading of the post would have answered. Perhaps you have another motive for the question, I will no doubt be appraised of it in good time.


39 posted on 04/09/2010 12:54:15 PM PDT by Cardhu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind; Petrosius
So the pedophile was willing to leave if left in “good standing” but was unwilling to leave if not? And The Vatican was insisting on keeping him because of his transgressions?

Here in lies something that is not really thought out well by many at large. A priest is found to have a credible accusations and my even be charged but put on probation. So the public says, "Defrock him", Bishop. Yet many Bishops don't. On the face of it, it seems wrong but what is better to do? Defrock him, let the accused priest/religious go into the world unabated or to keep him in a place where his contact with potential victims would be limited (usually in a house in a religious order or some other penitential place).

We know that secular society isn't going to care where this person is (as proven over and over again in the papers and on TV) and their chance of corrupting someone again is greater than if they are kept in a location where they are supervised and kept in the priesthood/religious life where they must honor their vow of obedience.

40 posted on 04/09/2010 1:01:33 PM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cardhu
Your intervention was not a comment but an unnecessary question which a cursory reading of the post would have answered. Perhaps you have another motive for the question, I will no doubt be appraised of it in good time.

My question is valid and simple and you refuse to answer it for some reason. I'm not sure why.

41 posted on 04/09/2010 1:02:59 PM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
How could this charge could possibly be supported against Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict), since Ratzinger's office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), had no jurisdiction over abuse claims in 1985? Charges of sexual abuse only became the CDF’s responsibility in 2001.

Implicating Ratzinger/Benedict is not just interpretatively wrong in this case but factually wrong: Sexual abuse cases as such were not his to judge.

Here's how it was explained by Michael Sean Winters in BishopsAccountability.org, a group which has been documenting the abuse crisis (I am condensing here for length, but this is his analogy):

Let’s take an example from another story to illustrate. There have been threats and acts of vandalism against members of Congress. Those threats were referred to the FBI. It is hoped the FBI will catch those responsible. One such case involved the cutting of a gas line; this, perhaps, necessitated calling the Environmental Protection Agency. But, if the criminals are not caught, I am not going to blame the EPA, I am going to blame the FBI. In the article, they are trying to blame the EPA.

My impression here is that media operatives are throwing out as wide a net as possible into lurid cases going back 25, 30, even 45 years or more (e.g. the Milwaukee School for the Deaf case) in order to implicate Ratzinger/Benedict by any means necessary.

The fact that Benedict has done more than any other man in the Vatican to weed out abusers and restore doctrine and discipline--- means nothing to them.

The fact that (according to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice) the vast majority of the abuse cases took place from the mid-60s to the mid-80s, and since then, due to vastly more effective protective measures, have been reduced in most Dioceses to zero-- means nothing to them.

The fact that the latest report, covering 2008-2009, shows exactly six credible allegations made against over 40,000 priests serving 60 million Catholics in the U.S. --- means nothing to them.

The New York Times and the AP are banking on two easy assumptions about most readers: that they won’t get past the headline and the first sentence; and that they’ll say “Yup, guilty” without asking “Where’s the rest of the story?”

42 posted on 04/09/2010 1:15:32 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (And some minds are like concrete: thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Amazing.

That UFO/Anti Catholic ping list poo poo everything about the Roman Catholic faith.

Heaven forbid anyone disagree with their UFO beliefs/Biblical theology.

I know we have allot of “packs” here at FR, somethin for everyone and that is cool.

However this one particular ping pack list come across as a bit delusional, short fused
know it alls.

Freeper Farakhans, hope their Mothership doesnt leave them behind. /sarc


43 posted on 04/09/2010 1:19:21 PM PDT by Global2010 (We have De Humanized our Society because we have De Christianize our society. Fr.Corapi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk; TSgt
If you are really serious I will explain it all to you.

on Post 12 TSgt sent a message the last part of which reads:

...Kiesle had been sentenced in 1978 to three years' probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young boys in a San Francisco Bay area church rectory. As his probation ended in 1981, Kiesle asked to leave the priesthood and the diocese submitted papers to Rome to defrock him.

Apparently he remained a priest through his 3 years of probation.

Thus the question - Why wasn't that done three years earlier.

I am sorry if I was cruel to you - it seems so obvious to me, that I thought it was just a set up for the real post you had in mind.

44 posted on 04/09/2010 1:21:28 PM PDT by Cardhu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk; Petrosius
Unfortunately, IF that is what happened, the rest of us, along with the aggrieved parties, are not made aware of such ‘inner-church punishment’. We are also not made aware of any sort of “rehab program” for offenders. We are left with wondering if the Catholic church shuttled this priest into some small parish in Nowhere, IA or is leading other priests, getting a promotion for the wrong-doing.

So, at the very best, the Catholic church has a bad PR campaign. At the worst, well, that's the impression we already have...

45 posted on 04/09/2010 1:25:51 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Hypocrisy: "Animal rightists" who eat meat & pen up pets while accusing hog farmers of cruelty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk; Antoninus
If you don't want people commenting on your comment then I suggest you send a private message. This is an online forum where your messages are public and may be commented on or you may be asked a question. I cannot believe you don't understand how FR works.

Really? Would you mind telling Antoninus?

There is no other word for your sick obsession with this issue other than "evil".
46 posted on 04/09/2010 1:26:59 PM PDT by TSgt (We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Gen. Burkhalter
Since the pedophile priest scandal erupted, the Church has in fact implemented comprehensive reforms

I think you mean since they GOT CAUGHT engaging in sexual abuse and systemic cover-up they have implemented comprehensive reform.
47 posted on 04/09/2010 1:30:58 PM PDT by LanaTurnerOverdrive ("I've done a few things in my life I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are disgusting.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Saltmeat

Papal infallibility applies only to the Pope’s thoughts on doctrinal issues. Only a tiny number of the writings of the Pope(s) are ever considered to be infallible.


48 posted on 04/09/2010 1:32:32 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

So, I don’t understand the doctrine of infallibility! Perhaps you are correct since I do not understand how a marriage that lasted for years and produced children can suddenly with the church’s blessing be annulled. Annulment and infallibility are both fantasies to me. They exist only in the mind of the beholder.


49 posted on 04/09/2010 1:54:38 PM PDT by Saltmeat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
So the pedophile was willing to leave if left in “good standing” but was unwilling to leave if not? And The Vatican was insisting on keeping him because of his transgressions?

You are still missing the point. Bishop Cummins should have initiated a trial and after a finding of guilt imposed the penalty of loss of the clerical state whether on not Keisle was willing. Rome was not making any ruling on a possible imposition of a penalty by Bishop Cummins. There was no reason for this to go to Rome. Rome's response was to deny a petition for a privilege that would have left Keisle in good standing and relieved him of the demands of celibacy.

50 posted on 04/09/2010 2:03:02 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson