B
baylee
Guest
So, in other words, the Pope should have reversed God’s call…no questions asked? The fact that God Himself calls His men to the priesthood is a very good reason to delay it, TYVM.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
No lay person with a record of abuse would be allowed anywhere near children or vulnerable adults - supervised or not.There are no allegations he abused anyone** from the time he was remoived from Priestly duties and the time he was defrocked. ** Since laity works with youth also why would laicizing him had made a difference?
This priest should never have been allowed to work in a youth ministry. Period.
The flagrant disregard for the safety and protection of the youth he had continuing access to is appalling.
It simply beggers believe that a man with a proven record of sexual abuse is allowed to continue to work with the youth of the parish.
A
anode
Guest
Some posters seem to have a very high threshold of what is an acceptable response.
Cardinal Ratzinger’s (lack of) response, via ‘form letter’ or no, wasn’t criminal. It was careless and negligent, though, but was in line with the church’s attitude towards abuse cases* at the time*–contain, contain. Spare and protect the church, above all.
It would, at the very least,* have looked a lot* *better *if the CDF had looked promptly at the evidence, which was pretty strong, —the man already found guilty by the judicial court system, —agreed that he was an abuser, and laicized him. Of course he could still molest children , but not on the church’s time or dime.
Cardinal Ratzinger’s (lack of) response, via ‘form letter’ or no, wasn’t criminal. It was careless and negligent, though, but was in line with the church’s attitude towards abuse cases* at the time*–contain, contain. Spare and protect the church, above all.
It would, at the very least,* have looked a lot* *better *if the CDF had looked promptly at the evidence, which was pretty strong, —the man already found guilty by the judicial court system, —agreed that he was an abuser, and laicized him. Of course he could still molest children , but not on the church’s time or dime.
S
Spirithound
Guest
You don’t need to be a priest to be a youth worker. If this man and his bishop were serious about him not hurting other children, the charitable thing to do would be for him to live out the rest of his life in a contemplative monastery.What is fascinating—and galling—about this case is that the priest’s bishop asked the Vatican to defrock him. The priest himself asked to be defrocked. He had already been put on probation for tying up and molesting two boys in a rectory. (Why that just earned him probation I’ll never fathom.) It took Cardinal Ratzinger FOUR YEARS to respond and then another two passed before the priest was laicized. There was no dispute about the man’s sexual abuse of children. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger argued that it would be a scandal for a priest so young to leave the priesthood; the bishop of Oakland countered—and who here disagrees with him?—that there would be no scandal for a child molestor leaving the priesthood whereas there could be great scandal for the Church’s retaining one.
And o yes, he worked as a youth volunteer in a Catholic parish while Cardinal Ratzinger dithered.
Cardinal Ratzinger cannot be held responsible for this man being in contact with children AFTER the man and his bishop both agreed that he should not be in ministry anymore.
M
markeverett49
Guest
I can see ‘careless’ and ‘negligent’ so long as these are understood as damning, the way it is damning for a doctor to be ‘careless’ and ‘negligent’ with a patient. Remember, while the good Cardinal sat on this letter FOR FOUR YEARS, no one else could do anything about it. In effect, he kept anyone ELSE from doing anything about this. For four years. Then he said he needed more time and another two years passed. And why was he negligent and careless? Because he thought it would look bad for such a young priest to be laicized. As the bishop of Oakland pointed out, that wouldn’t be seen by most as scandalous at all, and certainly nowhere near as scandalous as keeping around a pedophile for an extra six years.
S
Spirithound
Guest
The Pope’s new Shock-troops?I beleive they think the Pope should have sent an Opus Dei assassin out to kill this Priest.
A
Adeodatus
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
Problem is coming up with enough Albinos to fill the ranks.The Pope’s new Shock-troops?
M
markeverett49
Guest
He kept a known child molestor on the church payroll for six years because he thought it would be a scandal to laicize someone so young. Rather than think—as nearly everyone else on Earth would—that it is a shame such a depraved soul were ordained in the first place but the quicker he’s laicized the better, Ratzinger thought the best thing would be for the Catholic faithful pay for his upkeep until he aged enough so that his laicization would seem less scandalous to Cardinal Ratzinger. That’s mindboggling. There’s just no excuse for thinking it MORE important to delay the laicization of a priest who is young that to laicize ASAP a known pedophile. Jesus taught us, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” In this case, we see where Ratzinger’s heart was: with a child molesting priest (-who was asking to be laicized!) rather than with the People of God who deserve to be protected from such abusive priests by those who know (and keep) their secrets.Could you explain to me how this is what the future Pope did? (sp?)"
S
Shin
Guest
Much thanks for the link. I’ll quote it:
Fr. Z.:
Some bullet points about the California case with which APs and others continue to try to smear Pope Benedict.
- At the time, the CDF did not have competence in the cases of clerical pedophilia.
- The case before the CDF concerned a request by a priest for a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state.
- It was not a punitive case or an appeal about a sanction.
- The request was submitted by the priest and not the priest’s diocese of Oakland.
- The CDF didn’t not grant immediate dispensations to men who were not at least 40 years old.
- Once the CDF studied the case and the priest reached 40 years of age, the dispensation was granted.
There was no cover up. - 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.
- 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.
M
markeverett49
Guest
This MIGHT make sense if Cardinal Ratzinger spent those six years INVESTIGATING the matter. He didn’t do any such thing. That’s not how his office worked. It is not as if when the laicization finally came that it is because Ratzinger had learned one more fact that nailed down the case. He waited as long as he could wait without his waiting causing a scandal with the Bishop of Oakland. Now of course, his dithering is the cause for a far larger scandal. And deservedly so—I’m glad the world is looking at this case and scratching its head and thinking, “What the h**l took so long?” When this is the man the Vatican trumpets as the Church’s most vigilant cleric on sexual abuse, the world is not reassured. That the Vatican thinks of this as ‘business as usual’ is far more damning than a mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa from the Pope would be.So, in other words, the Pope should have reversed God’s call…no questions asked? The fact that God Himself calls His men to the priesthood is a very good reason to delay it, TYVM.
M
markeverett49
Guest
Why are they trying to smear Pope Benedict?
This sort of a defense is a big part of the reason: so, a pedophile cannot be laicized before he turns 40, meaning the Church must support him until then and tell no one about his crimes in the meantime becuase that would be, well, wrong, right? The reason the Vatican is saying so little about all this is that they don’t have a defense that a reasonable adult would find persusasive. This is special pleading of the worst sort, though it reveals clearly how little the safety of children figures into the Church’s thinking about laws regarding priests. As anyone with much Church experience knows, laws are used to rationalize after the fact. It’s a convenient defense for inaction but no less damning.
This sort of a defense is a big part of the reason: so, a pedophile cannot be laicized before he turns 40, meaning the Church must support him until then and tell no one about his crimes in the meantime becuase that would be, well, wrong, right? The reason the Vatican is saying so little about all this is that they don’t have a defense that a reasonable adult would find persusasive. This is special pleading of the worst sort, though it reveals clearly how little the safety of children figures into the Church’s thinking about laws regarding priests. As anyone with much Church experience knows, laws are used to rationalize after the fact. It’s a convenient defense for inaction but no less damning.
A
anode
Guest
There are two cases being discussed, the Milwaukee case and the Oakland CA case.
Both involved delays in response to cases presented to the Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, the CDF, of which Cardinal Ratzinger was head during the times involved (1981-2005).
The Milwaukee case involved Fr. Murphy, who was chaplain to St. Joseph’s School for the Deaf, was fluent in American Sign Language, and molested dozens of boys over a long time. They did all in their power to expose him, talking to priests, nuns, the police and THREE archbishops–to no avail. Weakland, the last archbishop, finally wrote Ratzinger personally, citing violation of the confessional, in that Murphy, who was used to ‘talking’ to the boys personally as a confessing priest (not actually in the confessional). solicited them to “talk about sex”, “Are your circumcised? Let’s see.”, etc. To me , it sounds like a deliberate corruption of the concept of confession, certainly a violation of the boys’ trust, let alone their bodies. Weakland also cited the fact that Murphy, in forced retirement in N. Wisconsin, in the diocese of Superior, was violating the terms of his retirement, apparently another criterion for referral to the CDF.
The New York Times received the documents supporting its article from 5 lawyers retained by the deaf boys-now-men to prosecute their suits against the Archdiocese.
These documents are here:
documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p1
I think that they provide very detailed support for the timeline; Weakland’s TWO letters to Ratzinger; the difficulty the archdiocese had in getting a timely response from the CDF; the discussion in Rome between Bertone, Ratzinger’s secretary, and bishops from Milwaukee and Superior, their dissatisfaction with Bertone’s recommendation–“Pastoral measures”; and the outcome.
The Oakland CA case is much worse. The priest was young, 38 years old, therefore much more dangerous; the felonies were recent, and HAD been dealt with by the local police (not very well, but better than Milwaukee, where they were ignored); the response from the CDF is much slower, 4 years initially; there were more insistent requests from the Oakland diocese, but the response was the same–foot dragging and an overarching concern for the church’s reputation, rather than ridding the church of a dangerous predator disguised as a priest. * It doesn’t matter *that he “is a priest forever”, he shouldn’t be allowed to use his role as a priest to trap the young. The church should not enable him to prey on the young in his role as a priest–period.
Cardinal Ratzinger later acted to prevent the protection of abusers, but it wasn’t until he became pope that he was able to retire one of the worst–Fr. Marcial **Maciel **Degollado, founder of the Legion of Christ, a large and immensely powerful and wealthy order, who by lavish gifts to key people in the Vatican was able to gain and retain favor until 2004, when Ratzinger initiated an investigation which culminated in 2006, when Ratzinger as Benedict was able to depose him.
ncronline.org/print/17698
Both involved delays in response to cases presented to the Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, the CDF, of which Cardinal Ratzinger was head during the times involved (1981-2005).
The Milwaukee case involved Fr. Murphy, who was chaplain to St. Joseph’s School for the Deaf, was fluent in American Sign Language, and molested dozens of boys over a long time. They did all in their power to expose him, talking to priests, nuns, the police and THREE archbishops–to no avail. Weakland, the last archbishop, finally wrote Ratzinger personally, citing violation of the confessional, in that Murphy, who was used to ‘talking’ to the boys personally as a confessing priest (not actually in the confessional). solicited them to “talk about sex”, “Are your circumcised? Let’s see.”, etc. To me , it sounds like a deliberate corruption of the concept of confession, certainly a violation of the boys’ trust, let alone their bodies. Weakland also cited the fact that Murphy, in forced retirement in N. Wisconsin, in the diocese of Superior, was violating the terms of his retirement, apparently another criterion for referral to the CDF.
The New York Times received the documents supporting its article from 5 lawyers retained by the deaf boys-now-men to prosecute their suits against the Archdiocese.
These documents are here:
documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p1
I think that they provide very detailed support for the timeline; Weakland’s TWO letters to Ratzinger; the difficulty the archdiocese had in getting a timely response from the CDF; the discussion in Rome between Bertone, Ratzinger’s secretary, and bishops from Milwaukee and Superior, their dissatisfaction with Bertone’s recommendation–“Pastoral measures”; and the outcome.
The Oakland CA case is much worse. The priest was young, 38 years old, therefore much more dangerous; the felonies were recent, and HAD been dealt with by the local police (not very well, but better than Milwaukee, where they were ignored); the response from the CDF is much slower, 4 years initially; there were more insistent requests from the Oakland diocese, but the response was the same–foot dragging and an overarching concern for the church’s reputation, rather than ridding the church of a dangerous predator disguised as a priest. * It doesn’t matter *that he “is a priest forever”, he shouldn’t be allowed to use his role as a priest to trap the young. The church should not enable him to prey on the young in his role as a priest–period.
Cardinal Ratzinger later acted to prevent the protection of abusers, but it wasn’t until he became pope that he was able to retire one of the worst–Fr. Marcial **Maciel **Degollado, founder of the Legion of Christ, a large and immensely powerful and wealthy order, who by lavish gifts to key people in the Vatican was able to gain and retain favor until 2004, when Ratzinger initiated an investigation which culminated in 2006, when Ratzinger as Benedict was able to depose him.
ncronline.org/print/17698
A
Adeodatus
Guest
Sorry, this is inaccurate.He kept a known child molestor on the church payroll for six years because he thought it would be a scandal to laicize someone so young. Rather than think—as nearly everyone else on Earth would—that it is a shame such a depraved soul were ordained in the first place but the quicker he’s laicized the better, Ratzinger thought the best thing would be for the Catholic faithful pay for his upkeep until he aged enough so that his laicization would seem less scandalous to Cardinal Ratzinger. That’s mindboggling. There’s just no excuse for thinking it MORE important to delay the laicization of a priest who is young that to laicize ASAP a known pedophile. Jesus taught us, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” In this case, we see where Ratzinger’s heart was: with a child molesting priest (-who was asking to be laicized!) rather than with the People of God who deserve to be protected from such abusive priests by those who know (and keep) their secrets.
A
Adeodatus
Guest
Sorry, this is inaccurate.Why are they trying to smear Pope Benedict?
This sort of a defense is a big part of the reason: so, a pedophile cannot be laicized before he turns 40, meaning the Church must support him until then and tell no one about his crimes in the meantime becuase that would be, well, wrong, right? The reason the Vatican is saying so little about all this is that they don’t have a defense that a reasonable adult would find persusasive. This is special pleading of the worst sort, though it reveals clearly how little the safety of children figures into the Church’s thinking about laws regarding priests. As anyone with much Church experience knows, laws are used to rationalize after the fact. It’s a convenient defense for inaction but no less damning.
S
Spirithound
Guest
If the man himself asked for laicization, he should have taken himself off the payroll.He kept a known child molestor on the church payroll for six years
Why is laicization so much better? Perhaps the Church could have gotten him some help.because he thought it would be a scandal to laicize someone so young. Rather than think—as nearly everyone else on Earth would—that it is a shame such a depraved soul were ordained in the first place but the quicker he’s laicized the better,
How does being in the clerical state automatically lead to unprotected contact with the laity?rather than with the People of God who deserve to be protected from such abusive priests by those who know (and keep) their secrets.
A
anode
Guest
There is no ‘help’ available for an abuser. They are incurable. He should have been in prison or on parole.If the man himself asked for laicization, he should have taken himself off the payroll.
Why is laicization so much better? Perhaps the Church could have gotten him some help.
How does being in the clerical state automatically lead to unprotected contact with the laity?
No one could protect society from him, but he didn’t have to remain a priest and molest as a priest. I would think that Ratzinger would have been very anxious to shed him from the priesthood, even if he would have ‘remained’ a priest until death–but not an acting, active, recognized one.
S
Shin
Guest
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=632
Another article on this… I’ll quote a small part of something worth reading entirely.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
Another article on this… I’ll quote a small part of something worth reading entirely.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
This response is deliberate misdirection on the part of its original author-the grounds presented to the Cardinal as part of the laicization request made specific reference to the child sexual abuse. Cardinal Ratzinger had the opportunity to affect change and shrunk from it.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=632
Another article on this… I’ll quote a small part of something worth reading entirely.
• 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.
Again, misdirection-his continuing status as a priest would give false reassurance to uninformed parents that he was a safe adult who could be trusted. Defrocking him would have reduced that public confidence to zero.• 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.
How is it that the abuse that occurred can be minimized by the lack of additional abuse occurring? If a restaurant handles food improperly, the health dept still revokes its license even if no one has gotten sick “yet”. A vehicle that doesn’t pass safety inspection is pulled from the road even though an accident hasn’t happened “yet”.• 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.
This dog doesn’t hunt.
B
baylee
Guest
This is what I do not understand about this situation. This priest was already removed from active ministry with his diocese. Why does laicization need to take place? And, furthermore, why is the Pope such an evil person for delaying such laicization if laicization has no effect on the abuse (since the priest was already not active)?There is no ‘help’ available for an abuser. They are incurable. He should have been in prison or on parole.
No one could protect society from him, but he didn’t have to remain a priest and molest as a priest. I would think that Ratzinger would have been very anxious to shed him from the priesthood, even if he would have ‘remained’ a priest until death–but not an acting, active, recognized one.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.