Clerical abuse!

[Main Street]

Is this a Vatican confirmation that,
yes Ratzinger knew,
he was part of encouraging a cover for (in his mind) the greater interest of the church
and that this was correct Vatican policy at the time?

Looks like the American bishops are getting fed up taking the rap for the Vatican and are leaking documents.

[Ulick]

Looks like the American bishops are getting fed up taking the rap for the Vatican and are leaking documents.

Actually you could be spot on there but they're not out to get him because of the clerical abuse, I'd say it has more to do with the litergical and other reforms the Pope is introducing. These have been vigorously opposed by the US bishops who would generally be very liberal a la carte type Catholics.

[Ulick]

Journalists abandon standards to attack the Pope
RSS Facebook 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.

The "exclusive" story released by AP yesterday, which has been dutifully passed along now by scores of major media outlets, would never have seen the light of day if normal journalistic standards had been in place. Careful editors should have asked a series of probing questions, and in every case the answer to those questions would have shown that the story had no "legs."

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.
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.

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.

[orangeman]

Those bad journalists - their morals have all gone. All their fault. 

[Ulick]

Those bad journalists - their morals have all gone. All their fault. 

What's their fault?

[mylestheslasher]

Is there any chance you could post links to these stories you are pasting Ulick?

[Main Street]

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.

Bishop Cummins - The timeline is in his earliest letter to Ratzinger, Bishop Cummins warned that returning Kiesle to ministry would cause more of a scandal than stripping him of his priestly powers.
"It is my conviction that there would be no scandal if this petition were granted and that as a matter of fact, given the nature of the case, there might be greater scandal to the community if Father Kiesle were allowed to return to the active ministry," Cummins wrote in 1982.

• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.

It was not denied, eventually after 5 years.  Meanwhile this fully frocked priest  continued working with children at the Pinole church,

Ratzinger directed Oakland Bishop John Cummins to provide Kiesle "as much paternal care as possible" while awaiting the Vatican ruling, according to a translation of the letter from Latin. That was a way of saying the bishop was responsible for ensuring Kiesle didn't reoffend,
California church officials wrote to Ratzinger at least three times to check on the status of Kiesle's case. At one point, a Vatican official wrote to say the file might have been lost and suggested resubmitting materials. Diocese officials considered writing Ratzinger again after they received his 1985 response to impress upon him that leaving Kiesle in the ministry would harm the church,

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.

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.

In the 5 years while the Vatican considered which scandal would be greater, to defrock a priest or keep him on,  a fully frocked Kiesle was back working with minors. He was not cured, there is no reason not to believe that he was anything less than a serious threat to those minors.
The California Court did throw out charges which exceeded the statute of limitiations. He was found guilty of sex abuse charges he committed in 1995.
Rick Simons, a Hayward attorney who has represented numerous clergy abuse victims, "Of all the perpetrators I met, which were probably a couple dozen, he was the most evil, remorseless sociopath of them all, just a terrible human being," said Simons. "He was so clearly without any degree of connection or remorse to any of these kids he molested. And there were a lot of them."

all info taken from
http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_14855089

[ardmhachaabu]

My wife was speaking to a psychologist friend of ours recently, this person lectures at university level so he is aware of all developments in his field.  Anyway, he was telling her that the Catholic Church couldn't have been aware of the psychological profile of a paedophile up until the last 10-15 years.  That makes sense in a timeline to me because I had undergone psychological profiling in various tests I did to see if I was a suitable person for the Redemptorist order and for diocesan priesthood as well.

My point is this, if the church couldn't have been aware of the profile of a paedophile; various people, who made decisions (which we look at today as being wrong) to save the face of the church and seek assurances from different priests who were paedophiles 'not to do it again' did so at the time because they believed they were doing the right thing for the church.  I am not condoning any of it for a second, I have said on here before that the church was always going to come under heavy fire and that it was and is the fact that the issues concern children which makes it most alarming for people looking at the church from outside as well as from inside the church.  I have had several relatives in religious life, I believe they were all wonderful people who made a lot of change for good in a lot of people's lives. 

These attempts to blacken the entire church because of the actions of a few within it are only to be expected to be fair.  I disagree with those who do entirely.  The church is more than a clatter of paedophiles who became priests, much more.  I believe good will overcome the evil that has been perpetrated.

[Ulick]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing unfortunatly there's still no smoking gun on the Pope, but I'm sure they'll have another go next week.

[ardmhachaabu]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing unfortunatly there's still no smoking gun on the Pope, but I'm sure they'll have another go next week.

Guaranteed

[orangeman]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing unfortunatly there's still no smoking gun on the Pope, but I'm sure they'll have another go next week.

Guaranteed

And what is is even more guaranteed is that there will be denials of wrong doing and anybody and everybody will get blamed, apart from themselves.

[mylestheslasher]

Is there any chance you could post links to these stories you are pasting Ulick?

Ulick has refused to tell us what his links to the catholic church are yet he continues to post articles such as the one above with putting in a link. Here is the link lads...

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=632

As you can see it is from a totally unbiased independent organisation  Maybe that is why the link is never posted.

[Ulick]

Erm no I haven't. Am using a mobile device so I can't be arsed with the hassle of going back to copy in urls esp when you can Google it yourself. Besides, the article I posted should be able to stand on its own merits, which it does to shoot down this latest feeble smeer attempt.

[pintsofguinness]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing unfortunatly there's still no smoking gun on the Pope, but I'm sure they'll have another go next week.

what do you mean hindsight is a wonderful thing? What's that statement in response to?

[mylestheslasher]

Erm no I haven't. Am using a mobile device so I can't be arsed with the hassle of going back to copy in urls esp when you can Google it yourself. Besides, the article I posted should be able to stand on its own merits, which it does to shoot down this latest feeble smeer attempt.

So you have no catholic links but keep finding stories to back up your views from obscure catholic websites, use a mobile device which you can paste articles but which is too much hassle to paste the link. Ulick - I believe you are full of shit and don't have the courage to declare your interests in this.