AP EXCLUSIVE: Future pope stalled pedophile case (California priest was eventually defrocked)

AP on Yahoo ^ | 4/9/10 | Gillian Flaccus - ap

[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.

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

[Mrs. Don-o]

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?”

[Global2010]

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

[Cardhu]

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.

[ConservativeMind]

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...

[TSgt]

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".

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

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.

[Straight Vermonter]

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.

[Saltmeat]

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.

[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?

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.

[ConservativeMind]

From the story:

As Kiesle’s fate was being weighed in Rome, the priest returned to suburban Pinole to volunteer as a youth minister at St. Joseph Church, where he had served as associate pastor from 1972 to 1975.

Kiesle was ultimately stripped of his priestly powers on Feb. 13, 1987, though the documents do not indicate how or why. They also don't say what role — if any — Ratzinger had in the decision.

Kiesle continued to volunteer with children, according to Maurine Behrend, who worked in the Oakland diocese's youth ministry office in the 1980s. After learning of his history, Behrend complained to church officials. When nothing was done she wrote a letter, which she showed to the AP.

So, it appears the Catholic church DID put this pedophile in a different place—one in which he was a youth minister and later, a youth volunteer, all while "Kiesle's fate was being weighted in Rome". What The Heck? The Diocese had already said that priest had to go and that priest agreed and had filed the paperwork. Wasn't there some sort of program in the Catholic church to consider internal offenses and limit access to kids from convicted pedophiles?

[ConservativeMind]

After we let the molesters spend special “alone time” with you, perhaps.

[Petrosius]

There is not enough details in the story to know the full truth. Sadly, the worse may be true but if it is then the blame goes to the local church, not Rome. I was responding to the headline and the implication of the article that “the future pope stalled pedophile case.” If any one is at fault here it is Bishop Cummins. He had all the tools he needed; he did not act. A church of 1 billion members cannot be micromanaged from Rome. If a local bishop is to blame, hold him accountable. Rather we are seeing a blatant attempt to use the scandal to bring down the pope, and through him the entire Church.

[Jackson57]

I rest my case. If its anti-Catholic, it will be believed without question regardless of the source.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Thank you for the clarification Mrs. Don-o.

[Jackson57]

Again, you’re failing to understand Catholic doctrine. There is a difference between a civil annulment and a Church annulment. The Church is saying that a marriage did not exist according to how it understands Scripture. That has nothing to do with the civil contract of marriage.

Please refrain from commenting about Catholic doctrine based on non-Catholic misunderstandings.

[ConservativeMind]

So, are you contending that Cardinal Ratzinger was improperly responding to a misrouted letter to which he had no authority? Also, how do you know that only on 2001 did that office start being responsible for such cases?

[Houghton M.]

Yeah, the NYTimes’ Laurie Goodstein depended on a Yahooo computer translation of an Italian document. Real shoe-leather journalism, that.

[Mrs. Don-o]

This is my source of information:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis

"In truth, Ratzinger did not have any direct responsibility for managing the overall Vatican response to the crisis until 2001, four years before he became pope.

"Bishops were not required to send cases of priests accused of sexual abuse to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until 2001, when they were directed to do so by Pope John Paul II's motu proprio titled Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela. Prior to that, most cases involving sex abuse never got to Rome. In the rare instance when a bishop wanted to laicize an abuser priest against his will, the canonical process involved would be handled by one of the Vatican courts, not by Ratzinger's office.

"Prior to 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith got involved only in the exceedingly rare instances when the sex abuse occurred in the context of the confessional, since a canonical tribunal within the congregation handled cases involving abuse of the sacrament of penance."

I'm not a canon lawyer and have neither training nor experience in such matters. In fact, if you or anybody else in the Free Republic forum has any better and clearer explanation of the canonical area, I'd be grateful to be pinged to the information.

[Petrosius]

Also, how do you know that only on 2001 did that office start being responsible for such cases.

From SNAP:

Doctrinal Congregation Takes Control of Priestly Pedophilia Cases

By John Thavis - Catholic News Service, December 5, 2001

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In a new set of norms, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has taken juridical control over cases of sexual abuse of minors by priests, classifying it as one of several "graver offenses" against church law.

The move represents a Vatican effort to centralize procedure and oversight on these kinds of sexual abuse cases, said canon law experts in Rome. [excerpt]