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 ...
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
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?
Like when the Atheists have there yearly Christmastime rant? Or Planned Parenthood’s sardonic Christmas parody?
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.
Why did that not happen three years earlier?
Why did what not happen three years earlier?
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
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.
Thank you for a clear and reasoned response.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.