Vatican overturns decision in abuse case

[4HisChurch]

At least from the way this article is worded, this is worrying in light of recent church scandals.

 

[mommyof4]

So what are they supposed to do with him??? Give him some desk job at the diocese office, or what?

 

[tee_eff_em]

At least from the way this article is worded, this is worrying in light of recent church scandals.

You find it worrying that justice applies to “accused” priests as well as to their partners? (And “accused” of what, by partners who were at least 18 at the time?)

:twocents:
tee

 

[4HisChurch]

The congregation ruled in November that Pilarczyk didn’t have the right to impose those penalties because the statute of limitations had expired five years after the alleged misconduct happened.

If the above is true, I am concerned because it seems, from this wording, that the Vatican overturned the original discipline because the statute of limitations had expired?! Its almost as if they were saying, if the civil authorities cannot prosecute, we won’t punish you.

But the congregation ordered Kiffmeyer to avoid situations that might endanger his priestly commitment

This made me think of the accusations against many of those in charge of past priest abuse cases that they admonished the priest and moved him to another post. That’s what worried me about this.

But, at 18, I realize this is about homosexuality.

 

[tee_eff_em]

If the above is true, I am concerned because it seems, from this wording, that the Vatican overturned the original discipline because the statute of limitations had expired?! Its almost as if they were saying, if the civil authorities cannot prosecute, we won’t punish you.

This made me think of the accusations against many of those in charge of past priest abuse cases that they admonished the priest and moved him to another post. That’s what worried me about this.

But, at 18, I realize this is about homosexuality.

Not only is it about homosexuality, at 18 there is no crime for civil authorities to prosecute.

The limitation mentioned, I presume, stems from canon law, and I further presume is in place for reasons similar to that in civil law. That the passage of time renders prosecution difficult and is an unfair burden upon defendants (witnesses forget, die, or are otherwise lost track of and unreliable).

tee

 

[davidc2]

First let me say that the article is the only source of information I have on this particular case. But a few things strike me as odd:

1. the two “victims” were over 18
2. there is no indication that whatever happened wasn’t consentual
3. they only provide details in one of the cases, and in that case the “student” had already graduated. (i.e., no longer a student there)

To sum up, there was no suggestion of “abuse” in this “abuse case”.

Breaking the vow of celibacy - especially in a homosexual way - is serious and should be treat as such. However, the punishment imposed in this case seems out of line with the canonical crime. In addition the comments from the Congregation seem entirely appropriate.

 

[fcbv]

This case is ridiculous! If the supposed “victim” was 18+ years old when the case occured, there was no sexual abuse! It was a simple case of homosexuality between a priest and a student. But I think the priest wouldn’t be allowed to come back to the ministry, because he violated his celibate vow!

 

[Karianne]

At least from the way this article is worded, this is worrying in light of recent church scandals.

Well, they cannot defrock a priest willy-nilly. The Cardinals and all are subject to Canon Law just as we are and perhaps it was found that an error was made when the first decision was rendered.
If the priest was not guilty of the charges against him he had a right to keep his job.
Had the victims been underage that would have been a different story.

 

[puzzleannie]

the only thing we have to go by right now is this newspaper article, which leaves out a key element of the story: if Vatican made a canon law ruling, what is the canon law that governs the case? Lousy journalism and lazy research on the part of the reporter.

Again, only from the facts of the article, civil and criminal law procedures, as well as canon law procedures, have substantiated no claims or accusations against this priest, therefore no civil, criminal or canon law punishments can be applied. Yet in prudence the decision seems to dictate that the bishop oversee this priest and does not allow him to dismiss his pastoral responsibility toward the priest and those with whom he comes in contact.

 

[tee_eff_em]

the only thing we have to go by right now is this newspaper article, which leaves out a key element of the story: if Vatican made a canon law ruling, what is the canon law that governs the case? Lousy journalism and lazy research on the part of the reporter.

Again, only from the facts of the article, civil and criminal law procedures, as well as canon law procedures, have substantiated no claims or accusations against this priest, therefore no civil, criminal or canon law punishments can be applied. Yet in prudence the decision seems to dictate that the bishop oversee this priest and does not allow him to dismiss his pastoral responsibility toward the priest and those with whom he comes in contact.

The article itself states “No civil suits were filed or criminal charges brought…” (nor could I imagine the Vatican ruling except wrt Canon law).

If I had to guess, I would say that among the canons involved are the following:

Can. 1362 §1 A criminal action is extinguished by prescription after three years, except for:
1° offences reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith;
2° an action arising from any of the offences mentioned in cann. 1394, 1395, 1397, 1398, which is extinguished after five years;
3° offences not punished by the universal law, where a particular law has prescribed a different period of prescription.
§2 Prescription runs from the day the offence was committed or, if the offence was enduring or habitual, from the day it ceased.
…]
Can. 1395 §1 Apart from the case mentioned in can. 1394, a cleric living in concubinage, and a cleric who continues in some other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue which causes scandal, is to be punished with suspension. To this, other penalties can progressively be added if after a warning he persists in the offence, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state.
§2 A cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the crime was committed by force, or by threats, or in public, or with a minor under the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.

tee

 

[Karianne]

the only thing we have to go by right now is this newspaper article, which leaves out a key element of the story: if Vatican made a canon law ruling, what is the canon law that governs the case? Lousy journalism and lazy research on the part of the reporter.

QUOTE]

I know what you mean, I’m so fed up with the media right now I don’t know what to say.
Yesterday they did the Ford thing to death! (no pun intended)
I wanted to hear more about the James Brown funeral and they barely covered it. Not even Black Entertainment!!!
Also, it seems that a lot of reporters have no interest in sourcing their stories, esp in the Washington Times and the Washington Post.
What do ya wanna bet the reporter didn’t even know there was such a thing as Canon Law?

 

[4HisChurch]

I’m a little surprised to see the church so tied in with secular law. If the “victim/partner” is 17, the priest is out; if he is 18, the priest stays?!

 

[puzzleannie]

I’m a little surprised to see the church so tied in with secular law. If the “victim/partner” is 17, the priest is out; if he is 18, the priest stays?!

the canon law proceedings govern offenses agains canon law, which may or may not overlap or be the same as offenses described in civil or criminal law statutes of the state. They are testing and judging different things. A ruling from the Vatican is on a matter of canon law, which states among other things that a priest cannot be deprived of his clerical status unless a serious offense (such as cited above) is proven against him.

Evidently, filling in the blanks from the scanty newspaper report (which is always dangerous) no such proof has been offered of any allegations. The age of the alleged “victim” or cooperator in any alleged offense by the priest are beside the point, except that of course a child victim would make a case even more heinous. The canon law proceeding does not make or attempt to make any judgement on a matter of state or federal laws.

 

[4HisChurch]

the canon law proceedings govern offenses agains canon law, which may or may not overlap or be the same as offenses described in civil or criminal law statutes of the state. They are testing and judging different things. A ruling from the Vatican is on a matter of canon law, which states among other things that a priest cannot be deprived of his clerical status unless a serious offense (such as cited above) is proven against him.

Evidently, filling in the blanks from the scanty newspaper report (which is always dangerous) no such proof has been offered of any allegations. The age of the alleged “victim” or cooperator in any alleged offense by the priest are beside the point, except that of course a child victim would make a case even more heinous. The canon law proceeding does not make or attempt to make any judgement on a matter of state or federal laws.

Thanks for that clarification. That makes more sense to me.

 

[didymus]

First let me say that the article is the only source of information I have on this particular case. But a few things strike me as odd:

1. the two “victims” were over 18
2. there is no indication that whatever happened wasn’t consentual
3. they only provide details in one of the cases, and in that case the “student” had already graduated. (i.e., no longer a student there)

To sum up, there was no suggestion of “abuse” in this “abuse case”.

Breaking the vow of celibacy - especially in a homosexual way - is serious and should be treat as such. However, the punishment imposed in this case seems out of line with the canonical crime. In addition the comments from the Congregation seem entirely appropriate.

Gee, it rather makes one wonder why the decision wasn’t greeted with more fanfare from the gay community and a headline like:

Rome Reinstates Gay Priest Persecuted by Archbishop

 

[Linuse]

There is another rash-judgment type jump in this line by posters. I see no indication of sex of the partner–except the correct usage of English in the pronoun–i.e. that when the sex of the antecedent noun is unknown, the male pronoun is used. So to say this was a homosexual relationship is a rash judgment.
As several others have pointed out about other aspects of this case–based on the info we are given, we have to say–‘we don’t know this aspect either.’
I would hope they could find a job for him where no-one would be at danger. A chancery office job that he would also be qualified to do might be the proper solution. But that choice is not ours but the diocese’s choice to make.

 

[iserve]

I hope this means that the “four figure” settlement and the subsequent sqabble about whether or not this is abuse gets shifted from the diocese to the priest and his accuser.

 

[mrsfrazier]

But, at 18, I realize this is about homosexuality.

Not really…how many 18 year olds can be considered fully in control of a sexual situation involving a powerful adult decades older than they are, whom they have probably known since they were much younger than 18 (given that this is a school situation, where the acquaintance/relationship began in a high school). While it may not be considered the same legally due to age laws, when this happens to a teen months after they turn 18, I think the Church should take still be alarmed that this is happening to a young person–and honestly, whether they are 17 or 18 or 19 doesn’t change the situation a whole lot in my eyes.

 

[goofyjim]

Why is it they look the other way when a priest is caught in homosexuality and they are so hard on the laity? Seems a little two-faced. Whether or not it was abuse the priest should still be defrocked.

 

[adrift]

wcpo.com/news/2006/local/12/29/priest.html

No civil suits were filed, nor were criminal charges brought against Fr. Kiffmeyer in either matter. Fr. Kiffmeyer denied that any sexual misconduct occurred.

Why is this priest being presumed guilty? Why is the accusser, who has the incentive of money, presumed to be telling the truth?

The Vatican was right!