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

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

[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.

[Houghton M.]

You don’t know what you are talking about. Not “defrocking” him did not enable him to have more time with kids.

His time with kids was already over. He had been removed from ministry.

“Defrocking” is a stupid journalist term for laicization. It has to do with a very technical issue, hard to explain. The priest does not cease to be a priest even when defrocked in the sense of the sacramental character conferred when he was ordained. But he does cease to be a priest in another sense.

This has very little to do with the man in question being a danger to children. The breathlessly mindless media band the word “defrocked” around as if it’s all that matters, so, therefore, not defrocking must be eeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiilllllll.

Ergo Benedict/Ratzinger is eeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvviiiiiiilllllll.

And you buy it hook, line and sinker.

Probably the priest should have been laicized faster. Ratzinger himself was behind John Paul II’s structural changes in 2001 to make laicizations take place faster.

But in this case, the breathless orgasmic press coverage which you ate up is mostly beside the point.

But most people are too stupid to know the difference.

[Houghton M.]

I really doubt that you want to understand them. I you do, freepmail me privately. I teach courses on these issues.

But if you really aren’t all that interested in understanding these things, your time is probably better spent on other threads.

[Houghton M.]

And this is the fault of Joseph Ratzinger in what specific way????

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for this --- very helpful. Now I'm going to go back and search for the rest of your posts on this subject so I can grasp the real shape of the situation.

I know paltry little about canon law, but at least I know that I don't know. But I am simply astounded at the people who are willing to bring in the dry sticks, the kerosene and the Bic lighter on Benedict, when they don't know jack chick about it.

See mine at #59.

[ConservativeMind]

LOL! You go from saying:

“You don’t know what you are talking about. Not “defrocking” him did not enable him to have more time with kids.” (post 61)

To saying that the Cardinal had nothing to do with it (post 63) when confronted with the fact that the Catholic church, in fact, DID let this guy lead a children’s ministry AND a youth volunteer after that AFTER being prosecuted and AFTER requesting his leave.

You are a funny one! Not “defrocking” him DID let the pedophile around more Catholic kiddies in two different congregations, all while The Vatican AND the local Diocese turned the other way.

I’m fine with the current Pope not having involvement in the matter, but, then, why, on Earth did he respond in an official capacity on the issue at all?

[Cardhu]

Most Excellent Bishop

Having received your letter of September 13 of this year, regarding the matter of the removal from all priestly burdens pertaining to Rev Stephen Miller Kiesle in your diocese, it is my duty to share with you the following:

This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favour of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ’s faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner.

It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time.

In the meantime your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible and in addition to explain to same the rationale of this court, which is accustomed to proceed keeping the common good especially before its eyes.

Let me take this occasion to convey sentiments of the highest regard always to you.

Your most Reverend Excellency

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[Dajjal]

bump

[Mrs. Don-o]

A layman (and that could be a laicized priest) could be a children's ministry leader or a youth volunteer. Simply being "reduced to the lay state" (="being laicized," = "being defrocked" as the journalists say) would not in itself prevent him from all the many activities with which a layman might be involved.

"Defrocking" is beside the point. It just makes him "not a cleric."

What would prevent him from getting involved in essentially non-clerical ministries (other than being incarcerated--- that's the ticket!--- but that's civil, not ecclesial law), would be a parish and Diocesan policy of carefully vetting everyone who has any active role in the parish, whether salaried or volunteer, clerical or lay.

Which is exactly what the parishes are doing at this point. I couldn't even do puppets at Vacation Bible School unless I provide an application with references and interviews, and take a mandatory course on protecting children and preventing child abuse.

This links should give you an idea of the precedures now in place. Link to Parish volunteer training page.

You have this inaccurate notion that "defrocking" is the essential or the ultimate thing. In terms of child-protection, it's not very relevant.

[Petrosius]

And what were the "arguments presented in favor of removal"? Again, Bishop Cummins had all the power through an ecclesial trial to remove Kiesle from the clerical status without reference to Rome. This petition was a request for a favor, not a part of the process of investigation or punishment.

To give an analogy, suppose Kiesle were a soldier rather than a priest. He has been charged with rape. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice he should be brought before a court martial convened by his commanding general. Rather than do this he is allowed to petition the Secretary of the Army for an early release from service with an Honorable Discharge. An undersecretary responds that he does not meet the standards for such an early discharge. Who is at fault here, the general who failed to boot him out with a court martial or the undersecretary? If there is any fault here it is with Bishop Cummins, not then Cardinal Ratzinger.

[A.A. Cunningham]

I am a Eucharistic Minister at my parish.

You are an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion not a Eucharistic Minister.

[Cardhu]

Keep your army analogy for the faithful here are the facts.

And what were the "arguments presented in favor of removal"?

Kiesle was a known child molester.

This petition was a request for a favor, not a part of the process of investigation or punishment

The diocese recommended removing Kiesle from the priesthood in 1981, the year Ratzinger was appointed to head the Vatican office.

The case then languished for four years at the Vatican before Ratzinger finally wrote to Oakland Bishop John Cummins saying he needed more time to think about it.

It was still two more years before Kiesle was removed.

To summarise:

1981 We have a child molester – we cannot cover it up as required by Crimen Sollicitationis 1922 modified 1962,he is going to cause trouble for the Church, we want to remove him.

1985 Let us not act hastily we need more time to think about it.

1987 OK if you really think it is necessary.

I have posted the actual 1985 letter elsewhere look it up.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It has been maddeningly difficult to get the relevant information out there, but let try again; and if you've already read this repeatedly, please forgive me, fellow FReeper, for the redundancy.

First: nothing at all prevents a bishop from:

• removing a priest from all ministry;
• removing his faculties;
• reporting him to civil authorities.

There is no need even to inform Rome about this. The only way (until 2001 or in cases of abuse of Confession) that it need get to Rome is if the priest appeals the bishop's actions.

Second: "Defrocking" (a stupid journo word, by which they inaccurately refer to what the Catholic Church calls "being reduced to the lay state" or "laicization") has nothing to do intrinsically with protecting kids, since in practical terms it just means he can now live "in the manner of a layman."

As if to prove this point, the priest in question continued to abuse children after he was "defrocked" and had married.

You can get a more accurate perspective on this if you'll read Mine at #68.

And by the way, the former Cardinal Ratainzer's former office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) wasn't even in charge of laicizations until 2001, except in those exceedingly rare cases where the offender abused the Sacrament of Penance (Confession), e.g. by soliciting a penitent for sex during a Confession, or by absolving a penitent for a sex offense in which the priest himself had been involved.

I don't blame anyone here on FR (you, me, anyone) for confusion on these matters, since virtually none of us are canon lawyers. But I am digging hard for the facts, and if you are doing the same, I say: dig on.

Essential reading: some enlightening facts from Fr. Fessio.

And this.

[Petrosius]

Kiesle was a known child molester.

Yes, but known to whom? Remember that Card. Ratztiger was responding to a petition from Kiesle himself, not from Bishop Cummins. What were the reasons that he put in that petition? I doubt that he wrote: "please release me from the restrictions of the clerical state because I rape little children." More likely he just stated some boilerplate psychological reasons about being unable to maintain celibacy, as did so many hundreds of other priests at the time who did not commit any crimes but just wanted out. Until we see the wording of the actual petition we cannot assume that Card. Ratzinger was aware of all the details.

One thing should be clear, I am not trying to say that there is no blame or guilt here. What I will not do, however, is accept the premise of collective guilt, that the entire Church is guilty. Guilt is personal. Nor will I accept the notion that everyone in the hierarchy is so corrupt that they all were conscientiously involved in a cover-up to protect known abusers. For one thing, Kiesle was convicted in a criminal court. How could there be a cover-up?

Unfortunately, you seem so desperate to believe that the entire Catholic Church is guilty that you insist on placing the most insidious reading on everything. Case in point, your claim that Crimen sollicitationis required a cover-up of abuse. CS cannot be accused requiring a cover-up unless you want to make the same charge against American grand juries. The secrecy that it requires is only about the investigation. It is likewise a crime to leak the testimony of a grand jury. If the investigation under CS finds that the charges are credible then there is to be an ecclesial trial followed by the imposition of penalties upon conviction. Thus para. 61 states:

He who has committed the crime of solicitation. . ., should be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from the hearing of sacramental confessions or even, according to the gravity of the delict, should be declared incapable of accepting them. He should be deprived of all benefices and dignities, of his active and passive voice, and be declared incapable for all these [honors and capacities], and in the more grievous cases also be subjected to reduction [to the lay state]. Thus states the Code in Canon 2368, § 1.

All these penalties would be of a public nature. Hardly a cover-up. There is no question that the case of Kiesle was not carried out correctly, but the fault lies with Bishop Cummins, not Card. Ratzinger.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

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.

"for the good of the universal church..."

Astounding.

When a church corrupts its children it is no longer a church but an instrument of evil.

[Quix]

Sigh.

[xzins]

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

If they have the translated letter, why not just post it so we can read it and make up our own minds.

Why just a "few words here" and a "few words there"?

[P-Marlowe]

Of course we are ALL sinners. The Catholic Church is a man-made institution. There are always temptations. There is always weakness and sin.

Child molestation and child rape is not merely "weakness". It is evil. Efforts to cover up such evil are no less evil than the acts themselves.

The Catholic Church needs to come clean on this one and if it means the Pope has to step down and be replaced by someone who doesn't have this particular "weakness and sin" on his hands, then that would be the best thing for the "good of the universal church."

I personally believe that Benedict should resign. I don't know if that has ever happened, but Nixon stepped down and that had never happened before either.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I wonder if all of Ratzinger's "letters" are "typed in Latin."

Strange. You'd think the pope would correspond in Italian or English, especially when he's writing to a diocese in Oakland, California. Perhaps Latin is more difficult to translate and thus easier to fudge its meaning.

"We're usin' code names" - RAISING ARIZONA.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Too bad AP has to be excerpted. The entire story is quite damning.

Fr. Kiesle was defrocked in 1987, although..."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."

Yet for nine more years he was allowed to remain a priest.

[Houghton M.]

You do not know what you are talking about.

1. At the time, the CDF did not have competence in the cases of clerical pedophilia.
2. The case before the CDF concerned a request by a priest for a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state.
3. It was not a punitive case or an appeal about a sanction.
4. The request was submitted by the priest and not the priest’s diocese of Oakland.
5. The CDF didn’t not grant immediate dispensations to men who were not at least 40 years old.
6. Once the CDF studied the case and the priest reached 40 years of age, the dispensation was granted.
There was no cover up.
7. If the Diocese of Oakland was pressing the Holy See to dispense this man so quickly, why did that same Diocese of Oakland permit the suspended priest to work as a volunteer with young people? The Holy See had nothing to do with that.
8. The AP and now all other MSM outlets who without hesitation or verification pick up the AP’s sloppy work, never bother to do background and ask basic questions about procedures and timing. They fail in the basics of curiosity, much less journalistic professionalism.

Read http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/04/lets-get-the-story-straight-defrocking-and-divorce-fr-joseph-fessio-sj.html