The Pope resisted defrocking a pedophile priest to protect the church in 1985

Hazys

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6951590.html

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.
"The press office doesn't believe it is necessary to respond to every single document taken out of context regarding particular legal situations," the Rev. Federico Lombardi said. "It is not strange that there are single documents which have Cardinal Ratzinger's signature."
The diocese recommended removing Kiesle (KEEZ'-lee) from the priesthood in 1981, the year Ratzinger was appointed to head the Vatican office which shared responsibility for disciplining abusive priests.
The case then languished for four years at the Vatican before Ratzinger finally wrote to Oakland Bishop John Cummins. It was two more years before Kiesle was removed.
In the November 1985 letter, Ratzinger says the arguments for removing Kiesle are of "grave significance" but added that such actions required very careful review and more time. He also urged the bishop to provide Kiesle with "as much paternal care as possible" while awaiting the decision, according to a translation for AP by Professor Thomas Habinek, chairman of the University of Southern California Classics Department.
But the future pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the "good of the universal church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age." Kiesle was 38 at the time.
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.
As his probation ended in 1981, Kiesle asked to leave the priesthood and the diocese submitted papers to Rome to defrock him.
In his earliest letter to Ratzinger, 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.
While papers obtained by the AP include only one letter with Ratzinger's signature, correspondence and internal memos from the diocese refer to a letter dated Nov. 17, 1981, from the then-cardinal to the bishop. Ratzinger was appointed to head the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a week later.
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 may 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, Rev. George Mockel wrote in a memo to the Oakland bishop.
"My own reading of this letter is that basically they are going to sit on it until Steve gets quite a bit older," the memo said. "Despite his young age, the particular and unique circumstances of this case would seem to make it a greater scandal if he were not laicized."
Irwin Zalkin, an attorney representing some of the victims, said he was familiar with the correspondence but wouldn't provide documents to AP.
"Cardinal Ratzinger was more concerned about the avoidance of scandal than he was about protecting children," Zalkin said in a phone interview. "That was a central theme."
As Kiesle's fate was being weighed in Rome, the priest returned to suburban Pinole to volunteer as a youth minister at St. Joseph Church, where he had served as associate pastor from 1972 to 1975.
Kiesle was ultimately stripped of his priestly powers in 1987, though the documents do not indicate when, how or why. They also don't indicate what role — if any — Ratzinger had in the decision.
Kiesle continued to volunteer with children, according to Maurine Behrend, who worked in the Oakland diocese's youth ministry office in the 1980s. After learning of his history, Behrend complained to church officials. When nothing was done she wrote a letter, which she showed to the AP.
"Obviously nothing has been done after EIGHT months of repeated notifications," she wrote. "How are we supposed to have confidence in the system when nothing is done? A simple phone call to the pastor from the bishop is all it would take."
She eventually confronted Cummins at a confirmation and Kiesle was gone a short time later, Behrend said.
Kiesle was arrested and charged in 2002 with 13 counts of child molestation from the 1970s. All but two were thrown out after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a California law extending the statute of limitations.
He pleaded no contest in 2004 to a felony for molesting a young girl in his Truckee home in 1995 and was sentenced to six years in state prison.
Kiesle, now 63 and a registered sex offender, lives in a Walnut Creek gated community, according to his address listed on the Megan's Law sex registry. An AP reporter was turned away when attempting to reach him for comment.
William Gagen, an attorney who represented Kiesle in 2002, did not return a call for comment.
More than a half-dozen victims reached a settlement in 2005 with the Oakland diocese alleging Kiesle had molested them as young children.
"He admitted molesting many children and bragged that he was the Pied Piper and said he tried to molest every child that sat on his lap," said Lewis VanBlois, an attorney for six Kiesle victims who interviewed the former priest in prison. "When asked how many children he had molested over the years, he said 'tons.'"
Cummins, the now-retired bishop, told the AP during an interview at his Oakland home that he "didn't really care for" Kiesle, but he didn't recall writing to Ratzinger concerning the case.
"I wish I did write to Cardinal Ratzinger. I don't think I was that smart," Cummins, now 82, told AP.
Documents obtained by the AP last week revealed similar instances of Vatican stalling in cases involving two Arizona clergy.
In one case, the future pope took over the abuse case of the Rev. Michael Teta of Tucson, Ariz., then let it languish at the Vatican for years despite repeated pleas from the bishop for the man to be removed from the priesthood.
In the second, the bishop called Msgr. Robert Trupia a "major risk factor" in a letter to Ratzinger. There is no indication in those files that Ratzinger responded.
The Vatican has called the accusations "absolutely groundless" and said the facts were being misrepresented.
___
Associated Press writers Brooke Donald in Oakland, Eric Gorski in Denver, John Mone in San Diego, Raquel Maria Dillon in Los Angeles and Victor L. Simpson in Rome contributed to this report.

Wow that is f'd up, surely he has to resign.

Blackhorse Slim

If Pope Benedict XVI, who dicked the other 15?

Risteard

Hazys wrote: »

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6951590.html




Wow that is f'd up, surely he has to resign.

Want to bet?

1978 to three years' probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young boys

EDIT: WTF? Misdemeanor?

Fago!

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

If Pope Benedict XVI, who dicked the other 15?

I hate you!

MaybeLogic

He'll probably not resign for 'the good of the universal church', the oul fucker.

Bigdeadlydave

Oh here we go again!

Catholic guilt/pedo priests/resign!/athiesm ftw/secularism ftw/damn bishops/can never look at Fr Ted the same way again/corrupt institution/religion is the bane of man/cant believe they still run schools/too much influence/government suck-they are doing nothing etc etc....

/thread

Alessandra

Pope in paedophile cover-up scandal!
Hardly surprising. This merely highlights the corruption from the top down.

There will be no measurable change in the Catholic Church as long as Benny is in power..

GLaDOS

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

Oh here we go again!

Catholic guilt/pedo priests/resign!/athiesm ftw/secularism ftw/damn bishops/can never look at Fr Ted the same way again/corrupt institution/religion is the bane of man/cant believe they still run schools/too much influence/government suck-they are doing nothing etc etc....

/thread

A+A have a stickied thread for it

Agricola

Anyone who invests his whole life into wrestling with the nonsense known as theology clearly isnt playing with a full deck of cards to begin with!Covering up for paedophile priests is pretty damn sensible next to that.

Alessandra

Agricola wrote: »

Anyone who invests his whole life into wrestling with the nonsense known as theology clearly isnt playing with a full deck of cards to begin with!Covering up for paedophile priests is pretty damn sensible next to that.

I'm sorry but that to me is a very ill-informed and offensive comment to make.

Yes there are bad people in the Church but I don't think you can state that anyone who has interest in theology is simple..

Can you give us a basis for this logic?

Agricola

Alessandra wrote: »

I'm sorry but that to me is a very ill-informed and offensive comment to make.

Yes there are bad people in the Church but I don't think you can state that anyone who has interest in theology is simple..

Can you give us a basis for this logic?

Covering up and facililitating sex crimes against kids seems more offensive to me.

Theology: "The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions."

So thats rational inquiry into an irrational subject matter. Ok then.

I didnt mean anyone with an interest in it is simple. I have an interest in the Lord of the Rings and other works of fantasy, but I wont be spending 40 odd years studying it, advocating it as a way of life and generally telling millions of people to live their lifes based on this work of fanstasy.

My name is URL

ScienceNerd wrote: »

A+A have a stickied thread for it

You've got to wonder why tbh. God damned fundamentalists :pac:

trapsagenius

OP, by using the word "resisted", you imply there was some sort of conscience struggle with Ratzinger at the time.We all know that there wasn't and simply didn't give a flying fvck...Sure wasn't the "good of the universal church" more important:rolleyes:?

Alessandra

Agricola wrote: »

Covering up and facililitating sex crimes against kids seems more offensive to me.

Theology: "The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions."

So thats rational inquiry into an irrational subject matter. Ok then.

I didnt mean anyone with an interest in it is simple. I have an interest in the Lord of the Rings and other works of fantasy, but I wont be spending 40 odd years studying it, advocating it as a way of life and generally telling millions of people to live their lifes based on this work of fanstasy.

You are entitled to your opinion but universally condemning those who study faith is offensive.

Theology does not only refer to the Catholic religion but also other religions..

Elenxor

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

Oh here we go again!

Catholic guilt/pedo priests/resign!/athiesm ftw/secularism ftw/damn bishops/can never look at Fr Ted the same way again/corrupt institution/religion is the bane of man/cant believe they still run schools/too much influence/government suck-they are doing nothing etc etc....

/thread[/QUOTE

Yes, here we go again,..and don't you just hate it that you can't intimidate us!!!!

PeterIanStaker

I've said it before and I'll reiterate it. The man wont resign, nor will any clergyman get any more than a slap on the wrist. The RCC is anathema to change.





Of course they are also protected by law. . . . madey-uppey make believe Canon law :mad:

philologos

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Of course they are also protected by law. . . . madey-uppey make believe Canon law :mad:

Are they though? In the US, paedophile priests were brought through the court-system and given jail time.

Does anyone know what arrangement stopped the same from happening here?

PeterIanStaker

Jakkass wrote: »

Does anyone know what arrangement stopped the same from happening here?

The cosy FF-RCC theocracy

philologos

Yeah, but what exact agreement or arrangement?

PeterIanStaker

The 1937 Constitution

philologos

Okay, you're not really answering my question. There is nothing in any Irish law that says that members of churches cannot be punished for crimes.

If someone can give me a proper answer, as to what exact agreement allowed for exemption, it would be much appreciated.

Elenxor

about 800 years of 'arrangements'?

There should be a pedophile/catholic church seperate forum at this stage.

Both go hand in hand.

Or should I say, hand in ass.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

Okay, you're not really answering my question. There is nothing in any Irish law that says that members of churches cannot be punished for crimes.

If someone can give me a proper answer, as to what exact agreement allowed for exemption, it would be much appreciated.

I can't tell if you are playing silly games or not Jakkass but seeing as you've posted in threads of this nature many times I'm going to presume so. You know damn well there was no specific law stating Catholic priests couldn't be prosecuted for a crime and you know damn well the insidious weasely grip they had on Irish society and why that meant prosecutions were not brought. Cut it out.

Agricola

Jakkass wrote: »

Okay, you're not really answering my question. There is nothing in any Irish law that says that members of churches cannot be punished for crimes.

If someone can give me a proper answer, as to what exact agreement allowed for exemption, it would be much appreciated.

Irish catholic priests would surely be subject to the same canon law as American priests. So my thinking is, in the same way the Americans are quick to punish "white collar" crimes, and we here in Ireland are generally very slow to, id imagine theres just a greater willingness to see justice being done, no matter who the culprit is. The Americans dont have as many sacred cows as we do.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

I can't tell if you are playing silly games or not Jakkass but seeing as you've posted in threads of this nature many times I'm going to presume so. You know damn well there was no specific law stating Catholic priests couldn't be prosecuted for a crime and you know damn well the insidious weasely grip they had on Irish society and why that meant prosecutions were not brought. Cut it out.

I'm actually asking how the situation was different in America than it is here.

What is there to "cut out"? I'm asking how or why people weren't put to trial for this?

Agricola: Canon law doesn't stop the State law from punishing people. Would Muslim Imams be acquitted of child abuse based on Sharia law, Jews on the basis of Torah, or Talmud?

The State isn't bound by Canon law. These are the rulings by which religious organisations rule by, the rule of State is applicable at all times however.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm actually asking how the situation was different in America than it is here.

What is there to "cut out"? I'm asking how or why people weren't put to trial for this?

Maybe my tone was a bit confrontational, sorry.

From the post you just quoted about 30 seconds ago. "you know damn well the insidious weasely grip they had on Irish society and why that meant prosecutions were not brought."

That situation didn't exist in the USA at any time. That's how the situation was different.

philologos

The US has had a huge abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, similar to the one we have here. Yet those who were found to have abused were put through the legal system and arrested.

As far as I am concerned, the law is applicable to all. If a minister in a church I went to or was involved in was involved in child abuse, I would expect them to be put to trial like anyone else.

Biggins

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm actually asking how the situation was different in America than it is here.

Its just my own opinion (and thus open to be wrong) but I believe that here in Ireland the religious organisations, manly one (Rome) is so integrated within constitutional law, every local facet throughout the country and have integrated the clergy into every public committee (to extend influence) to some extent that - IF - an Irish elected representatives or possible wanna be's, wished to stay in their seat or gain one, they would have to side with the Rome and their daft rules being belched out from the high chair in Rome and thus the pulpit at local parochial level.

Up to now, dare one in previous years NOT side with the church, there stood little chance of election or staying there in their already seat. Such was the vitriol from the pulpit that could persuade the brainwashed public!
They, the Rome mafia type mob made sure they integrated themselves more so into every corner of Irish society so that nothing else was allowed gain influence or speak of alternative teaching/ways of life.

---

The states were a different ball game. What was/is in historic terms still a "new" nation in comparison to much older European states, the Americans came alone after fighting the Indians, the British and anything before or in between in such a short space of time, they said the equivalent of "bugger this - we are ruling ourselves as we see fit more so than any other outside upstart coming in yet again and one again gain such a divisive foothold."


* Long story short: The USA didn't allow Rome to get dug into its society to a equal or greater degree, its many corners local and national as much as Rome did in Ireland.

...I'm open to be wrong of course!

Agricola

Jakkass wrote: »

Agricola: Canon law doesn't stop the State law from punishing people. Would Muslim Imams be acquitted of child abuse based on Sharia law, Jews on the basis of Torah, or Talmud?

The State isn't bound by Canon law. These are the rulings by which religious organisations rule by, the rule of State is applicable at all times however.

Course, sorry freudian slip there. The state law is supreme. My point was all the interested parties here, from the police, to the legal profession to the politicians just didnt have the apetite for confronting these issues. Politicians have said already that the state failed bigtime.
The church was just so ingrained in society that subjecting it to the same levels of scrutiny as other organisations which might be involved in criminality just wasnt an option.
I dont think there'd be any legal loophole that priests in Ireland would have enjoyed over priests in the US.

strobe

Of course the law should be applicable to all, man. That doesn't mean it is always applied.

I remember my mother telling me a story about when she was a little girl in rural Ireland and she and her friends were playing outside her home, the parish priest was walking past and one of her friends stuck her toungue out at the priest. The priest preceded to lay into her, smacking and kicking her round the place. My Granfather saw what was happening, ran out and cracked him in the jaw. Both assaults, the little girl having her arm broken and bruised all over by the priest, and my Mother's Father, hitting the priest were reported to the Gardai.

Have a guess which one was prosecutted and which wasn't?

Listen if you don't get my point now, you never ever will. So I'll leave you to it.

philologos

strobe, I do get your point.

I'm interested to know what agreement, or document exists that warrants the State not prosecuting for child abuse. It's not about not getting it, it's about wanting to know the legal mechanics behind it.

goose2005

Agricola wrote: »

I didnt mean anyone with an interest in it is simple. I have an interest in the Lord of the Rings and other works of fantasy, but I wont be spending 40 odd years studying it, advocating it as a way of life and generally telling millions of people to live their lifes based on this work of fanstasy.

Llie n'vanima ar' lle atara lanneina, sir.

fontanalis

Agricola wrote: »

Anyone who invests his whole life into wrestling with the nonsense known as theology clearly isnt playing with a full deck of cards to begin with!Covering up for paedophile priests is pretty damn sensible next to that.

But what a waste of his life; no marriage or kids and he spent his life in a stupid hat in a position supposedly representing Jesus on earth and he covered up for the vilest scum imaginable. Really he must be so proud.

goingpostal

Alessandra wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion but universally condemning those who study faith is offensive.

Alessandra wrote: »

I'm sorry but that to me is a very ill-informed and offensive comment to make.

I have come to the conclusion that any article in the paper which is about the RCC trying and failing to defend itself from utterly justified attacks is made up of equal parts; denial, minimization, self-pity, and blaming the meeja for reporting their crimes. It is pathetic. And religious beliefs are have no special exemption from rational enquiry, and no-one has the right to go through life without being offended.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

strobe, I do get your point.

I'm interested to know what agreement, or document exists that warrants the State not prosecuting for child abuse. It's not about not getting it, it's about wanting to know the legal mechanics behind it.

There are no legal mechanics behind it. Nothing was written into law. Really man, are you asking that question hoping to find out the answer? Did you not know the answer already? Because I find that very hard to believe.

If you are trying to make some point, just come out and make it.

billybigunz

The pope is an evil cúnt.

Elenxor

billybigunz wrote: »

The pope is an evil cúnt.

but what's your point?:D

Ickle Magoo

My name is URL wrote: »

You've got to wonder why tbh. God damned fundamentalists :pac:

More of a mega-merge for all the threads being posted...lots of angry ex-partitioner don'tcha know... :cool:

Sisko

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

Oh here we go again!

Catholic guilt/pedo priests/resign!/athiesm ftw/secularism ftw/damn bishops/can never look at Fr Ted the same way again/corrupt institution/religion is the bane of man/cant believe they still run schools/too much influence/government suck-they are doing nothing etc etc....

/thread

It'll keep happening till all those things are sorted, cause we're right.

Get used to it. Yeas had a good run. Its logic's time to shine now.

Bigdeadlydave

Sisko wrote: »

It'll keep happening till all those things are sorted, cause we're right.

Get used to it. Yeas had a good run. Its logic's time to shine now.

Wait maybe I should clear up a bit here, Im not defending the church in any way its just these threads are getting repetitive, like the public service ones.

TMH

OOPS LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE ELSE GOT THERE FIRST, SORRY!

Pope Benedict ViViVi was hit by fresh allegations yesterday that he failed to crack down on sexually abusive Catholic priests before becoming pontiff.

A letter written in 1985, when the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was the head of the Vatican's doctrinal unit, resists a request for the defrocking of an American priest with a record of molesting children, for the "good of the universal Church".

The letter, published by Associated Press, also notes the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age". The priest, Father Stephen Kiesle, was 38 at the time.

Father Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, confirmed the cardinal's signature on the letter, but added: "The press office doesn't believe it is necessary to respond to every single document taken out of context regarding particular legal situations."

Read the full story at The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/10/pope-paedophile-priests-cover-up?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Come on, this has to be the straw that breaks the old bastard's back doesn't it?

PS: Chose After Hours as opposed to the Religion forum as this is where the most interesting debates seems to occur.

WindSock

Is he also Catholic?

Senna

Bring back JPII

Hank_Jones

Already a thread on this.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055879527

Jesus Wept

JPII was a psycho too.

biko

The fall of the Catholic Church surely would equal the fall of the Soviet Union?
When it falls that is.

FearDark

Post edited... due to thread merge

strobe

biko wrote: »

The fall of the Catholic Church surely would equal the fall of the Soviet Union?
When it falls that is.

Well, as the old saying goes......What goes up, (based on the oppression, murder, ostracization and persecution of anyone that stands in your way) must come down.

Sisko

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

Wait maybe I should clear up a bit here, Im not defending the church in any way its just these threads are getting repetitive, like the public service ones.

So what if they're getting repetitive, these things have been kept in the dark or too taboo to speak of for far too long. Repetitive? The more the better I say.

Pittens

based on the oppression, murder, ostracization and persecution of anyone that stands in your way

Sounds like the Enlightenment, or Protestantism. Democratic Capitalism is the biggest killler in history.

When's them going to fall.

This particular case is nonsense, the Pope ( then Cardinal's) office did not try and obstruct any defrocking. Whats happening is the typical hysteria against Catholicism that raises it's ugly head every so often in the British liberal press - exacerbated in this case by the fact the Pope is also German. So the Anglo nationalists get to hate whom they have always hated ( Catholics - the near continent and Ireland, and Germany) whilst playing PC liberalism with Islam.

The UK would be better off investigating its own secular institutions - like Jersey, Islington etc. And/Or open the kind of inquiries into Anglican schools that have happened in Ireland.

Not that Catholic priests or Bishops who have covered up should not go to jail - they should.

But, in fairness, let's not just blame one ideology or theology for child abuse. The main abusers are parents, and I dont see any demand for an end to that institution.