Posted on 04/11/2010 4:30:58 PM PDT by annalex
By Phil Lawler | April 10, 2010 10:03 AM
We're off and running once again, with another completely phony story that purports to implicate Pope Benedict XVI in the protection of abusive priests.
First to repeat the bare-bones version of the story: in November 1985, then-Cardinal Ratzinger signed a letter deferring a decision on the laicization of Father Stephen Kiesle, a California priest who had been accused of molesting boys.
• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.
So to review: This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican-- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. In short, if you're looking for evidence of a sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant.
We Americans know what a sex-abuse crisis looks like. The scandal erupts when evidence emerges that bishops have protected abusive priests, kept them active in parish assignments, covered up evidence of the charges against them, and lied to their people. There is no such evidence in this or any other case involving Pope Benedict XVI.
Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church. If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective.
The New York Times-- which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified:
…the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.
Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!
No, what is "fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal" is a media frenzy. There is a scandal here, indeed, but it's not the scandal you're reading about in the mass media. The scandal is the complete collapse of journalistic standards in the handling of this story.
Ping to number 18.
That is such a liberal tactic.
Disagreement is different from slander. We are objecting to slander, not mere disagreement.
Do try to keep up.
The sooner Mahony goes “bye-bye”, the better.
Thanks.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Journalists have standards?
Yes, many do refuse to drink blended malt scotch.
And Hubbard and Braxton and Trautman and...feel free to add names.
Lol.
You got that right.
That’s very possible.
Oh big surprise here, not.
No kidding. All of a sudden “conservatives” embrace the New York Times as a bastion of Truth. Ignore the scandals that their own journalists have brought down on their own heads in the last few years, as long as they’re bashing the Catholic Church, let’s get on board!
I’m one of those Catholics who, while liking JPII well enough, hardly found him ‘great’. He is yet another Pope who has been given authority but not used it. A sin, by Catholic standards, no less than politicians “washing their hands of innocent blood” but not really preventing it either.
He IS leaving soon. Archbishop Gomez, formerly of San Antonio, is going to L.A.!
Mahony can grab a surfboard and let Archbishop Gomez take over effective immediately; the world would be better off.
I was listining to (Fr. Pacwa, I think) discuss the lack of ability in the MSM to fact check these stories.
One of the fishwraps got the two letters written in Latin on a case from the Vatican.
Instead of hiring a translator they popped the letters into a word proccessor to translate and used that to write thier version.
Sorely lacking any credability. Hah!
As I have stated on other threads let them keep it up it is turning luke warm Catholics on fire for their faith!
That is why Benedict XVI has consistently attracted more people to his general audiences than John Paul II did.
he was always going to have his papacy overshadowed by the legacy of John Paul
Nonsense. He has already done more for the liturgy and Christian unity than John Paul II ever did.
Caww: this is worth your careful reading, if you have the time. There is no doubt whatsoever that there are guilty parties in the Catholic Church --- like tares among thre wheat, and guilty as hell. However, Phil Lawler's excellent article adds to the growing mountain of evidence that a campaign of lies is being carried on --- with the malignant intention of destroying the innocent and shielding the guilty.
You're much closer to heaven than I am.
Aside, I actually heard The Formerly-Perky One say "...experts have linked homosexuality with pedophelia."
I don't know how a fact, however obvious, slipped into the talking points but it has.
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.