Most of you have heard the news that the Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger) delayed in defrocking a pedophile priest in California in 1985. The Associated Press, and the rest of the media bandwagon, have heralded this report as ‘the smoking gun.’ Only, one problem. It’s a lie.
To portray this incident and the letter as a smoking gun is a willful misrepresentation of the truth. Want to know why I say that? I don’t need to tell you because Phil Lawler has done the job already.
Now the key questions:• 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.
I urge you to read the entire piece and to thank Mr. Lawler for this tremendous work.
April 11, 2010 at 6:28 pm
I'll wait and see what other articles pop up. I did see this, though.
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=371161
Again, I'll wait and see what other articles come up.
April 11, 2010 at 6:50 pm
I don't think people understand what laicization even means. In fact I don't think people understand what the term" defrocking" means in a Catholic concept and what it means
It seems it is viewed from a Protestant perspective. In reality when a Priest is barred from Public Ministry that is akin to the Protestant notion of defrocking!!
What is ironic is the guy had been barred from Public ministry and basically he wanted a dispensation for the VOW and requirtement of Celibacy in which at this time no one got(unless they had children)
None of that is reported It might as well read Pope delays ability of child abusing priest to marry!!!!
April 11, 2010 at 7:12 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
April 11, 2010 at 7:20 pm
@Helen
Keep drinking the Kool Aid.
April 11, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Some people don't want to hear the truth for a lot of reasons. Some are only presenting an agenda of their own. Or maybe someone was hurt and has not healed or forgiven yet. Some are out for money and to tear down the church. Benedict is our Pope now because God made him for these troubling times. Just think what would happen if we had a Pope who was liberal or had less of a strong faith record. I pray for his health and incredible faith to not fail him.
April 12, 2010 at 12:08 am
The church that through the ages taught me and other children right from wrong did not know right from wrong when it came to children. Crimes were swept under the rectory rug, and molesters were protected to molest again for the “good of the universal church.” And that is bad, very bad — a mortal sin.
The church has had theological schisms. This is an emotional schism. The pope is morally compromised. Take it from a sister.
April 12, 2010 at 12:23 am
Why doesn't anyone wonder why they didn't go to the.. police. I mean its kind of the least you could do. All the rest is just splitting hairs.
April 12, 2010 at 12:52 am
Amen, James. I got into this argument just today. But for those who don't appreciate the sacramental reality, what can you do?
Awesome thoughts, Helen, you sure are teh smarts!
April 12, 2010 at 1:33 am
I thought it was just my paranoia that it all seemed to be originating with Associated Press, but it seems more obvious every day that they have an agenda here.
What annoys me most about the angry responses are the extreme versions of the arguments.
NO this is NOT just a beat up to hurt the Pope. People really DID get abused and some very stupid bishops followed some extremely stupid advice from 'experts' instead of following Canon Law and completely screwed up hundreds of young Catholic's lives. They deserve to be outed and face the charges consequences in the proper courts. If we say anything less we are simply continuing the line THEY took that justified covering up the crimes in order to save the Church's good name.
On the other hand, those who keep baying for blood against the holiest and best of our heirarchy need to be slapped down. They are using the extreme emotions in the community regarding this matter to further their own twisted agenda, almost always against the greatest advocates for the victims within the Church. Sure, the bishops who turned a blind eye need a slapping, but YOU who actively use these poor people's pain for your own political ends have taken it to a whole new level. How DARE you take the knife and twist it in these people's wounds, parading their tears every other day so you can get away with screaming down the Popes sincere apology, and the good and humble efforts of so many clergy to restore people's faith. Of all the callously heartless political manouvers, this one takes the cake.
The statistics proving that celibate clergy have a lower, yes LOWER, percentage rate of abuse than married clergy, and even they have signifiantly lower than counselors and psychologists, but where is the public outcry against the varuious psychological practitioners organisations? True the Church should be more accountable, and we are rightly scandalised by ANY breach of what we preach, but the reason that the Church is targeted is not that we sin, but that we continue to preach that sinning is NOT OK. Wheras all the others teach that it is (mostly) ok.
April 12, 2010 at 10:25 am
Bill, the AP story, as well as all the others, clearly states that Fr. Kiesle was arrested, pleaded "no contest" and received three years' probation(!) from our wonderful justice system. All BEFORE he asked to leave the priesthood. Calling the police was irrelevant at that point.
April 12, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Peter, I appreciate how you point out that there is real pain an anger among victims and people concerned for victims as well as make a convincing argument that some–not all, but some–have been sensational and partisan.
I thought that this would be a good time to also point out there isn't a uniform state-run liberal media I came across this cartoon.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_K5ls3SJu5Qo/SuYlsZddEUI/AAAAAAAAB2k/ay02rKkeWTg/s1600-h/Fox+News+thompson.jpg
April 13, 2010 at 8:18 pm
"Defrocking" and "Laicize" are two terms that are incorrect. Neither are used in the Church.
A priest is a priest forever and never a layman in a strict sense. But he can be dismissed from the clerical state or dispensed from its obligations.