Letter shows future Pope Benedict resisted defrocking molester priest

[momor]

C’mon people, wake up! Don’t you get it? The Holy Mother Church is at war with the powers and principalities of this world. Namely satan and his minions. This is going to get alot worse.
Pray! We are told the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but many will fall away before this is over. Pray for the Holy Father, Pray for Holy Mother Church!!!

Another way to look at it could be that satan has been doing his work for a while now and God is allowing a thorough housecleaning to take place. I have no doubt that the Church will be stronger for it in the end. My faith in Catholicism is not shaken, only in some mortal men.

 

[MJE]

"especially when it comes to ratzinger, he was/is one of the most brilliant, articulate, (and clearly) SHREWD individuals IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. " writes serrevin.
Is this insinuating that Beelzebub and Pope Benedict XVI are one and the same? Or is your animosity toward the papacy bubbling over?

 

[serrevin]

"especially when it comes to ratzinger, he was/is one of the most brilliant, articulate, (and clearly) SHREWD individuals IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. " writes serrevin.
Is this insinuating that Beelzebub and Pope Benedict XVI are one and the same? Or is your animosity toward the papacy bubbling over?

beelzebub? someone explain the correlation.
my point is that compared to jp2 his strongsuit is obviously not on the heart side but more on the head/logic side and as such he should have been able to decipher the common-sense solution to these issues.
as far as animosity goes, i’ve seen roman catholics on this board who’ve said worse (ie calling for mr. ratzinger to step down) so there’s no reason to go there with me.

 

[Hiskid1973]

I just saw this a few minutes ago in the news…It just seems to be starting a flood of revelations…But as someone mentioned earlier about a housecleaning, it will start with the household of God…I can imagine the church in Corinth got a good housecleaning…

 

[anode]

Altar boys come in all shapes and sizes–some would knock out a priest who laid a hand on them, but others would not. Predators are probably pretty shrewd about picking the most vulnerable victims. Also, these are priests and a lot of Catholic boys have been taught to do whatever Father tells them to…

I think that you have made a good point. The social worker who interviewed Fr. Murphy, the abuser from Milwaukee, said that he admitted identifying immature, isolated, socially awkward boys to molest. Apparently he could spot them with no trouble…

 

[anode]

The reaction on this board is due to many false, inaccurate, maliciously misleading media reports and posts that propagate the inaccuracies. There are a few athiests and aniti-catholics (not implying you are one) sprinkled in that seem to enjoy all of this too, which is a little irritating.

We are all very outraged!! by the abuse. If we didn’t have to spend so much time correcting inaccuracies, there would be more posts to make that evident.

BTW I fear that other christian churches and other religions are going to be treated in the same manor in due time.

Unfortunately, the California case appears to be a stronger one against the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger than the Milwaukee case. The abuser was young, not old, the petitioners in CA kept re-petitioning the CDF to look at the case, and the CDF continued to stall, citing concerning for the church. I didn’t see anything about the “abusers can be cured” argument that the church’s defendants are citing. The abuser didn’t appear to ever receive any ‘treatment’, or want any, for that matter, so that argument isn’t valid in this case, nor did the CDF mention it.

Fortunately, things have changed. This case would be heard promptly now, or so I assume.

 

[anode]

markeverett49;6505780:

Or so they claim. Also, what was the context of the deal with regard to Ratzinger’s responsibility? He wasn’t put in charge of the whole sexual abuse scandal until 2001. Before that he was in charge of priestly abuse of the Sacrament of Confession.

I think we’re lacking sufficient detail (and I would venture to say so is the L.A. Times) to make a judgement at this point. Given the nature of the anti-Catholic, bigotted media in this country, I doubt anything they say in the way they say it.

If the the California diocese kept writing to the CDF regarding Kiesle, they must have had grounds to refer the case to the CDF. The CDF never responded that the case wasn’t in ‘their jurisdiction’ or whatever. When Ratzinger finally did respond, it was to try to contain the scandal, as was Bertone’s response in the Milwaukee case (Bertone was Ratzinger’s secretary at the CDF).

I am afraid that this case is worse than the Milwaukee case, a lot worse. The events were old and the abuser was old in the Milwaukee case. Not so here. Once again, the time line is of concern, a four year delay, multiple requests by the California diocese, more demurring by CDF, more protesting by the California diocese. It sounds as if these facts can be fairly easily verified.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi anode,

If the the California diocese kept writing to the CDF regarding Kiesle, they must have had grounds to refer the case to the CDF.

I’m not so sure. It looks to me that what involved the CDF was that Kiesle, after his probation ended, petitioned to leave the priesthood. The CDF would have been in charge of that, I think.

anode:

The CDF never responded that the case wasn’t in ‘their jurisdiction’ or whatever. When Ratzinger finally did respond, it was to try to contain the scandal,

I don’t think there is anything wrong in trying to limit scandal – if you mean it in the theological sense and not in the secular sense of “trying not to look bad”.

I think that Bishop Cummins wrote in his original letter “It is my conviction that there would be no scandal if this petition were granted” – why would you write that? I think because dispensing a priest form his duties wasn’t ever done lightly. I think this whole thing, as far as the CDF was in it, revolved around dispensing not punishing the priest.

You say that Ratzinger was trying to contain the scandal. . . but what do you base that on? I know that one of the lawyer’s interpretation is that Cardinal Ratzinger “was more concerned about the avoidance of scandal than he was about protecting children.” But that is just his interpretation. You know how lawyers talk when they are advocating a case, right?

anode:

Once again, the time line is of concern, a four year delay, multiple requests by the California diocese, more demurring by CDF, more protesting by the California diocese. It sounds as if these facts can be fairly easily verified.

I agree, the timeline really is a concern. There is the lapse of time. But a delay can be legitimate or without malice. I do hope all the facts are verified.

VC

 

[PassingThru]

You see, this betrays that you aren’t particularly familiar with the facts of the matter, or the statistics. You make accusations that Pope Benedict is “a person who is allowing the worst crime possible to continue,” without any facts to back them up.

The statistics speak to the contrary: the reforms that then-Cardinal Ratzinger worked on have helped contribute to the drastic drop in sexual abuse in Catholic institutions marked by the late 80s and early 90s through to the current day. Today the rate of abuse is next to nil.

Further the article in question provides no facts that suggest that then-Cardinal Ratzinger allowed sexual abuse to continue. The man was already removed from ministry and any contact with children - and rightly so. If anything the facts buried in the foolish narrative of the writer show us something very disturbing: the offender was convicted, but not removed from society by the Judicial System and when the Church cut him loose there was no one left to monitor his behavior and keep him from harming children - so he went on to harm more children.

• Marty Lund

Just to keep your facts straight, this priest WAS involved in the Church during this “inactive” period. He was actually involved in the local YOUTH ministry. It took some of the thankfully protective mothers/nuns involved months of raising hell to get this priest out of the youth groups.

Unless, of course, these ladies are all lying, and fabricating evidence. I am sure someone will say they are… sigh.

 

[sidbrown]

The social worker who interviewed Fr. Murphy, the abuser from Milwaukee, said that he admitted identifying immature, isolated, socially awkward boys to molest. .

This is pretty horrifying and disgusting that priests were doing such criminal and perverted things. Priests are supposed to be representatives of Christ.

 

[JohnT58]

…
We are all very outraged!! by the abuse. If we didn’t have to spend so much time correcting inaccuracies, there would be more posts to make that evident.

BTW I fear that other christian churches and other religions are going to be treated in the same manor in due time.

I agree.

But I do have a few questions,

1. Don’t local bishops have the power to ‘defrock’ without writing to the Vatican?
2. If Ratzinger’s ‘department’ didn’t have the mandate for dealing with these cases, why were said bishops writing to him?
3. Why did the state let a convicted child molestor off so lightly?

Until Rome answers this more fully, (the letter, not my questions) it sounds like the media have their ‘smoking gun.’

 

[psr13]

I agree.

But I do have a few questions,

1. Don’t local bishops have the power to ‘defrock’ without writing to the Vatican?
2. If Ratzinger’s ‘department’ didn’t have the mandate for dealing with these cases, why were said bishops writing to him?
3. Why did the state let a convicted child molestor off so lightly?

Until Rome answers this more fully, (the letter, not my questions) it sounds like the media have their ‘smoking gun.’

In regard to number 3, at least California used to let molestors off very easily. They thought that they could be cured or something. I don’t know all the details. There have been all kinds of stories about molestors getting off easy. Sadly, it still happens sometimes, but not nearly as much as in the '70s.

 

[Ocarm]

In regard to number 3, at least California used to let molestors off very easily. They thought that they could be cured or something. I don’t know all the details. There have been all kinds of stories about molestors getting off easy. Sadly, it still happens sometimes, but not nearly as much as in the '70s.

I’m unsure whether this was as common or as routine as is often suggested in defences of the church. I also want to be clear that what follows is not a challenge to you personally, but a challenge to the manner in which so many of us are accepting this idea uncritically, which I think is potentially dangerous.

As an ex-mental health professional who was active in the 80s and 90s (in the UK, I should add), I’m interested in these assertions. Whilst I saw a lot of flaws and bad practice in my career, naive optimism wasn’t usually the underlying problem. For what its worth, the people I’ve met who work in forensic psychiatry are the complete opposite of the stereotypically naive liberal who is easily misled into believing their patients are cured; instead they tend to be cynical, conservative, and entirely reluctant to take chances. Not always a bad thing, either.

I’d like to see some smoking gun letters or case files (anonymised for the sake of confidentiality, obviously) where a mental health professional says, ‘Yes, he’s cured; he can go back into active ministry and work with children again’. In the case of clerics who are now dead, these should be easy to produce. If professionals deserve some of the blame, lets hear about it. There’s plenty of blame to go round.

But despite having pursued this within published documentation, on the net more generally, and even here on CAF, I’ve yet to identify a single case where this happened. In fact the cases where psychiatric involvement did occur tend to the opposite, with bishops acting against the advice of professionals.

Increasingly it feels like viral information, where assertions are being repeated by multiple sources without making reference to particular evidence, and are then repeated again until they are seen as evidence in and of themselves. We’ve seen this happen with a lot of factoids about the abuse crisis. If true, evidence should be easy to find. I am completely open to the possibility that the evidence exists, but assertions are not proof, by whomever they may have been made.

It seems to me that clarifying this is of some importance, and that if such incompetence occurred, evidence should be brought to light as significant mitigation. Certainly if as a bishop I had made the decision to return someone to ministry based on a psychiatrist’s testimony, I would be quick to cite this when accused of negligence.

 

[momor]

I’m unsure whether this was as common or as routine as is often suggested in defences of the church. I also want to be clear that what follows is not a challenge to you personally, but a challenge to the manner in which so many of us are accepting this idea uncritically, which I think is potentially dangerous.

As an ex-mental health professional who was active in the 80s and 90s (in the UK, I should add), I’m interested in these assertions. Whilst I saw a lot of flaws and bad practice in my career, naive optimism wasn’t usually the underlying problem. For what its worth, the people I’ve met who work in forensic psychiatry are the complete opposite of the stereotypically naive liberal who is easily misled into believing their patients are cured; instead they tend to be cynical, conservative, and entirely reluctant to take chances. Not always a bad thing, either.

I’d like to see some smoking gun letters or case files (anonymised for the sake of confidentiality, obviously) where a mental health professional says, ‘Yes, he’s cured; he can go back into active ministry and work with children again’. In the case of clerics who are now dead, these should be easy to produce. If professionals deserve some of the blame, lets hear about it. There’s plenty of blame to go round.

But despite having pursued this within published documentation, on the net more generally, and even here on CAF, I’ve yet to identify a single case where this happened. In fact the cases where psychiatric involvement did occur tend to the opposite, with bishops acting against the advice of professionals.

Increasingly it feels like viral information, where assertions are being repeated by multiple sources without making reference to particular evidence, and are then repeated again until they are seen as evidence in and of themselves. We’ve seen this happen with a lot of factoids about the abuse crisis. If true, evidence should be easy to find. I am completely open to the possibility that the evidence exists, but assertions are not proof, by whomever they may have been made.

It seems to me that clarifying this is of some importance, and that if such incompetence occurred, evidence should be brought to light as significant mitigation. Certainly if as a bishop I had made the decision to return someone to ministry based on a psychiatrist’s testimony, I would be quick to cite this when accused of negligence.

If you are willing to do the research yourself there are volumes of US church documents here that have been made public as a result of litigation.
bishop-accountability.org/member/index.jsp