Accused Kentucky Bishop Resigns

LEXINGTON, Ky.- Roman Catholic Bishop J. Kendrick Williams resigned Tuesday amid accusations of sexual abuse, becoming the third U.S. bishop brought down in the scandal rocking the church.

Williams, 65, had been accused of abuse by three plaintiffs. He denied the charges and went on leave voluntarily under a diocesan policy that requires clergy to be removed from public duties while an accusation is pending.

The Vatican said Pope John Paul II accepted Williams' resignation, submitted under church law for "illness or some other grave reason."

"He has been a brother, counselor and friend to me for 20 years," Kelly said. "May God bring peace to his pastor's heart as he looks to the future. May we always remember the blessings that have come to us through his ministry."

The resignation comes two days before American bishops meet in Dallas to decide on proposals to deal with sexual abuse in the clergy.

At least 225 of the nation's more than 46,000 Roman Catholic priests have either been dismissed from their duties or resigned since the scandal began in January.

In March, the Rev. Anthony O'Connell resigned as bishop of Palm Beach, Fla., after admitting he abused a seminary student in Missouri more than 25 years ago. And last month, Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland's resignation was accepted by the Vatican a day after he acknowledged paying a man $450,000 to settle a sexual misconduct allegation against him.

The Vatican cited Weakland's age as an explanation. He had submitted a resignation request in April when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 75 and asked the Vatican to expedite it after the settlement became public.

Bishops in Poland and Ireland were also forced to resign this year in sex abuse scandals.

The scandal began enveloping the church after revelations that the Archdiocese of Boston had shuttled now-defrocked priest John Geoghan from parish to parish despite repeated allegations that he was a pedophile.

A panel of U.S. bishops has called for a zero-tolerance policy toward sex abuse and defrocking of any priest with more than one such incident in his past. The proposal will be taken up at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' meeting that begins Thursday.

Ordained a bishop on June 19, 1984, Williams was named the founding bishop of the newly-established Diocese of Lexington. He was installed on March 2, 1988.

Plaintiff James W. Bennett alleged Williams abused him in 1981 while Bennett was a 12-year-old altar boy. David Hall alleged Williams fondled him when Hall was an 18-year-old high school senior. The third plaintiff, Thomas C. Probus, accused Williams of molesting him in 1981.

- In New York, Bishop Thomas Daily of Brooklyn was asked in a closed-door deposition about how he handled defrocked priest Geoghan when he was an official in Boston. Daily served there from 1971 to 1984. In March he said he regretted some of the decisions he made during that time.

- In Chicago, Cardinal Francis George became one of the rare church leaders to agree with victims' advocates in saying that any policy dealing with sexually abusive priests should also discipline bishops who fail to act on cases within their dioceses.

- In Evansville, Ind., Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger, who has allowed two priests to remain active despite sexual improprieties, said he opposes zero tolerance. He said two priests in his diocese who were rehabilitated and assigned to new parishes after sexual misconduct are examples of successes that would have been impossible under such a policy.

- The Archdiocese of Miami has turned over about 50 years of sexual abuse records to state prosecutors, Archbishop John C. Favalora said. Favalora would not say how many records, which include sealed settlements, he gave to the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office.

BISHOPS' MEETING IN DALLAS
by Bishop Gerald A. Gettelfinger

In recent days at public meetings I have registered my concern about the unreal expectations that many have for the meeting of the Bishops of the United States in Dallas, Texas next week. National and international media attention has fueled this to frenzy.

In that context, I have repeated my personal anxiety about the ability of the body of bishops of about three hundred to meet expectations of the members of the Catholic Church and the citizenry of the United States, not to mention the world. That number is a little less than that of the Congress of the United States. The task must be accomplished in virtually one and one-half days. Votes of a significant nature require two-thirds majority of the members. I am one of the members.

Communications and documentation to us bishops this week has changed my position. Those have reduced my anxiety. They have given me hope for positive and clear outcomes. They are as follows:

-- The Issue of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Clergy is the only item on the agenda. All others have been deferred.

-- There are three subjects to be considered:

o Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People
o Essential Norms for Diocesan Policies
o National Day of Prayer on September 14, 2002

Each bishop has received the text of the proposed Charter. Note that it provides a framework or pegs upon which to build or hang clear policies for dioceses. Each of us has had a chance to submit amendments. I have done so.

Each bishop has also received the text of the proposed "norms." Note that these items, if approved by the bishops and with the "recognition" by the Holy See, will become law particular to dioceses of the United States. As in the former, I have submitted amendments to text and issues in want of clarification.

The latter is a very significant matter. If the norms are approved by the bishops of the United States and are acceptable to Rome, each bishop in charge of a diocese, of which there are 186, will not be free to deviate from it. I am a "bishop in charge of a diocese" as distinguished from assistant or auxiliary bishops. I will faithfully abide by such a law.

Popular language like "one strike" and "zero tolerance" do not appear. The effects of the proposed actions, however, have the same effect. It is in this area that I have some grave reservations.

The first is the concern for painting every failure with the same brush. I accept failure as part of the human condition. I believe in forgiveness and possibility of conversion for those guilty of single failure. Those who have sinned and repented have a capacity for compassion that the self-righteous do not understand. Conversion is the key element.

The second has to do with full acceptance of the responsibility of the wrongdoing of a cleric, particularly the incurable or habitual sexual abuser. I do not find "full acceptance" reflected in any of the texts. Dismissal from the clerical state, may provide for the separation of the cleric from the diocese, but it does not keep him "off the street." There is no mention of "clerical incarceration" (for lack of a better term).

If, indeed, the Bishops of the United States are concerned for the protection of children and young people from pedophiles and sexual predators of teenagers, there must be more than simple "expulsion" from the clerical state known as "laicization." I am concerned.

Lastly, I am distressed that the "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People" seems to infer by the term "dioceses" that this charter refers only to the responsibility of the bishop.

There is a "National Advisory Council" to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I am hopeful that its response will be available to us as we convene.

A diocese is a local church; it includes each and every member. Each and every member must assume responsibility for eradicating this horrendous abuse of children and young people. Pastoral Councils at the diocesan and parish levels must be proactive in dealing with this concern.

I leave the reader with this question: "Where do child abusers come from?"

http://www.evansville-diocese.org/bishop/forum.htm

The removal of bishop Kelley is one more small step toward rehabilitating the Church in America. Homosexual priests are central to the scandal, but they would be powerless to do their dirty work, expand their networks, and corrupt the seminaries and other organizations without the weakness and sometimes the complicity of diocesan bishops.

Archbishop Thomas C. Kelly of the Louisville archdiocese said Williams will be missed, and called his resignation "a personal loss for me as well." Williams served as a priest in Louisville under Kelly for about two years. "He has been a brother, counselor and friend to me for 20 years," Kelly said. "May God bring peace to his pastor's heart as he looks to the future. May we always remember the blessings that have come to us through his ministry."

In the circumstances, this comment by the Archbishop of St. Louis is atrocious. I agree that he certainly looks like part of the problem, and probably is among the bishops who should be removed.

Guidelines mean nothing unless they are implemented, and that can only be done by good, solid, faithful bishops who are dedicated to their duties as apostolic shepherds. Weak, cowardly, dissenting, or corrupt bishops must be removed. They have track records, and it's all too obvious who most of them are. I didn't know until the latest scandal broke that Weakland was a homosexual, but it was obvious for decades that he was a bad bishop, disloyal to the Church, eager to publish his dissenting views in the secular press, and destructive to his flock. Much the same can be said about people like Cardinal Roger Mahoney and, it seems, Archbishop Kelly.

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.