Stop the presses! So Crimen Sollicitationis isn’t — as we’ve been told for so long — the smoking gun, the primary instrument by which the Vatican covered up sexual abuse by the clergy, the nefarious work of the former Inquisition, which imposed a secrecy so strict that it prevented bishops from reporting crimes to civil authorities?
No! In reality, it was the key to reform, the document that would have put all power for completely re-writing the Church’s policy on sexual abuse right into Cardinal Ratzinger’s hands as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), if only he would have been willing to use it!
Ah, but that’s not the only shocking revelation: it now seems that we were mistaken all along in asserting that U.S. bishops in the 80’s and 90’s were a sorry lot of aiders and abettors of child abuse, in fact, criminals themselves, who shuffled child-raping priests around from parish to parish. I know this is what we’ve always been told, but we now know that this is completely wrong. No, they were really noble-minded crusaders for emotionally-wounded victims of abuse, who spent the whole of the 1990’s prodding the Vatican and the recalcitrant Ratzinger into action!
This, apparently, is what the New York Times thinks, in its latest hatchet job on Pope Benedict (OK, I’m exaggerating, but not by much).
I do wish the all-knowing members of the press would make up their minds. It’s so hard to keep the conspiracy theories straight. It’s like reporters don’t even remember what was previously said. As soon as they come up with some new “truth” they just expect us to play along. (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia).
Note how, little by little, the burden of blame is shifting. Nothing was the fault of the bishops, the police, governments, or the abusing priests themselves. No, it’s solely and completely Ratzinger’s fault!
All that aside, what does the new story actually say? Parts of it do contain some valid reporting, but there is much obscuring of vital details (some already known and available from previous Times reporting), along with much editorializing and wild speculation.
The article is based on this premise. Crimen Solicitationis, an Instructio first issued (secretly) by the Holy See to bishops in 1922, and again in 1962, gave the responsibility to the Holy Office (the future CDF) for overseeing and serving as a court of appeal for the trials of priests accused of sexual solicitation in the confessional. The bishops of individual dioceses were responsible for hearing complaints, charging priests and holding trials. Almost as an afterthought, in a couple of paragraphs the Holy Office was also given similar powers for trials of priests accused of sexually abusing minors.
The major contention of the new Times piece, by Laurie Goodstein and David Halbfinger, is that based on this document (let’s call it CS henceforth), Ratzinger had the power in his hands to crack down on clergy abuse throughout his tenure at the CDF in the 80’s and 90’s but didn’t act on it. One of the canon law experts the authors of the piece depended on, Nicholas Cafardi, explains in a separate article “The fact that the Holy Office had jurisdiction over those crimes was very important, because crimes in the Holy Office’s jurisdiction are unprescribable, that is, they have no statute of limitations.” This would have meant that the CDF would not be bound by the five-year statute of limitations for abuse laid down in the 1983 Code of Canon law. In fact, the norms of CS were in effect, by Ratzinger’s own admission, up until 2001, when a complete overhaul was made in the Church’s approach to clergy abuse. So while the future Pope may have urged action in a few cases (like that of the notorious Fr. Maciel), he really deserves no credit for the reform in 2001.
Now Goodstein and Halbfinger do admit that the canonical situation was confusing after the promulgation of the 1983 code (recall that Ratzinger only came to Rome to head the CDF in February 1982). Many canonists were of the opinion that the new code nullified the earlier document.
But that didn’t stop the authors from engaging in speculation and innuendo in arguing that Cardinal Ratzinger ignored the problem of abuse throughout most of his tenure at the CDF. Other than that, the story is very light on evidence. They claimed to have interviewed some ten bishops who had inside knowledge, but only quoted a couple of them - in itself very strange. And the ones they do quote had only good things to say about Ratzinger’s efforts against abuse.
The authors say that Ratzinger blocked the laicization of one pedophile priest in the 80’s because of a fear of too many men leaving the priesthood. The priest is not named, but it is largely admitted to be a reference to the Fr. Steven Kiesle case in Oakland, CA on which the Times has based other reporting, with documentation. If this is the case, why didn’t they authors name the priest and provide the link to the sources which their own paper had published?
Perhaps the reason is that it is anything but clear in this case that Ratzinger did anything to block the priest’s request for voluntary laicization – or that he would have even been able to do much to expedite it, given Vatican policy at the time. (See my story here) It seems that the authors now realize they didn’t have much of a case there and conveniently hurried over this part.
Also, the Times said nothing about another much-publicized case that showed Ratzinger’s office being pro-active in urging action in a canonical trial for abuse in Tucson from 1992-97 (although the AP and a Tucson reporter tried to make it look like the opposite). I also wrote about this case here:
This particular span of time, the mid-to-late 90’s, is key, since canonists had begun asking the CDF about CS around 1994, and urged its use to expedite cases. Yet the Times doesn’t give any clear timeline as to when Ratzinger might have taken action (See this superb piece by Mollie at GetReligion for an explanation).
Yet the Times, it seems, already has information on this very question that it didn’t use: it comes right from the notorious article on the Father Murphy case - also written by Goodstein the Times back in March with extensive documentation. Among the documents was an April 6, 1998 letter from Cardinal Bertone of the CDF to Bishop Raphael Fliss of Superior, WI, in which he reminded the bishop that Crimen Sollicitationis had ruled that penitents in cases of solicitation in the confessional must make their accusations within 30 days. Wait! So CS does mention a statute of limitations after all?
In fact, it does. Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee, who had originally been handling this case, had written to the CDF to ask if this provision could be waived. Evidently it could. On the other hand, Bertone then went on to say that there was no statute of limitations as to how long after the event a trial could be held, which meant that the bishop would be able to prosecute a 35-year old case. This document shows clearly that by 1998, the CDF (or at least Bertone) making use of CS to expedite a case. And the statute of limitations questions turns out to be more complicated than expected. Why didn’t Ms. Goodstein include this information from her own files?
And yet while they had space for none of the above, the authors did find time to castigate Cardinal Ratzinger for — gasp! — actually doing what his Congregation was set up to do: oversee Catholic doctrine.
As [accused molester] Father Gauthe was being prosecuted in Louisiana, Cardinal Ratzinger was publicly disciplining priests in Brazil and Peru for preaching that the church should work to empower the poor and oppressed, which the cardinal saw as a Marxist-inspired distortion of church doctrine.
Here, I believe, is the real reason for the Times‘ fury - Cardinal Ratzinger just kept right on and on, upholding true Catholic teaching, refusing to substitute Marxism for salvation in Christ refusing to accept everything else that modern wisdom tell us is good, like divorce, sexual promiscuity, abortion, etc. etc. etc.
What of the authors’ main contention the CS was the key to reform? It may have been helpful with the statute of limitations, but it clearly wouldn’t have given Ratzinger the power to make new regulations, rewrite parts of canon law, or go deeper into the causes and solutions to the problem of clergy sexual abuse. That’s clearly why the whole 2001 re-organization was needed. So trying to base an argument on this one document doesn’t hold water.
Stop the presses is right! Can no one stop the press from distorting the truth?
Update: Sunday, July 11
I just learned that late in June, many Catholics in Germany began making plans for rallies in support of the Holy Father today, on the feast of his papal patron, St. Benedict. Very heartening news! Note to the Times: if your plan was to detach Catholics from the Pope — it’s not working!
Update, July 16
Yesterday, the Vatican put out some new norms, including those on sex abuse cases. The document has a lengthy section giving the historical background of the Church’s legislation on the subject, with some much-need clarifications:
Cases concerning the dignity of the Sacrament of Penance remained with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Office; its name changed in 1965) after the Council, and the Instruction “Crimen Sollicitationis” was still used for such cases until the new norms established by the motu proprio “Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela” in 2001.
A small number of cases concerning sexual misconduct of clergy with minors was referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after the Second Vatican Council. Some of these cases were linked with the abuse of the sacrament of Penance, while a number may have been referred as requests for dispensations from the obligations of priesthood, including celibacy (sometimes referred to as “laicization”) which were dealt with by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until 1989 (From 1989 to 2005 the competence in these dispensation cases was transferred to the Congregation for Sacraments and Divine Worship; from 2005 to the present the same cases have been treated by the Congregation for the Clergy).
The Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1983 updated the whole discipline n can, 1395, § 2: “A cleric who in another way has committed an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants”. According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law canonical trials are held in the dioceses. Appeals from judicial sentences may be presented to the Roman Rota, whereas administrative recourses against penal decrees are presented to the Congregation for the Clergy.\
In 1994 the Holy See granted an indult to the Bishops of the United States: the age for the canonical crime of sexual abuse of a minor was raised to 18. At the same time, prescription (canonical term for Statute of Limitations) was extended to a period of 10 years from the 18th birthday of the victim. Bishops were reminded to conduct canonical trials in their dioceses. Appeals were to be heard by the Roman Rota. Administrative Recourses were heard by the Congregation for the Clergy. During this period (1994 - 2001) no reference was made to the previous competence of the Holy Office over such cases.
The 1994 Indult for the US was extended to Ireland in 1996. In the meantime the question of special procedures for sexual abuse cases was under discussion in the Roman Curia. Finally Pope John Paul II decided to include the sexual abuse of a minor under 18 by a cleric, among the new list of canonical delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Prescription for these cases was of ten (10) years from the 18th birthday of the victim. This new law was promulgated in the motu proprio “Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela” on 30 April 2001. A letter signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, respectively Prefect and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was sent to all the Roman Catholic Bishops on 18 May 2001. This letter informed the bishops of the new law and the new procedures which replaced the Instruction “Crimen Sollicitationis”.
The acts that constitute the most grave delicts reserved to the Congregation were specified in this letter, both those against morality and those committed in the celebration of the Sacraments. Also given were special procedural norms to be followed in cases concerning these grave delicts, including those norms regarding the determination and imposition of canonical sanctions….
The important thing to not here is that after the promulgation of the 1983 code of Canon law, the CDF only had jurisdiction of abuse cases that were connected with the Sacrament of Penance. This is indoubtedly what was meant in 20001 in saying that CS had remained “in effect until now.” The effect referred only to the particular cases the Congregation still had the authority to treat after 1983.
Your can read the whole document here.
Filed under: Church issues, Pope Benedict XVI, sexual abuse by priests | |No Comments
Developments are coming thick and fast; right now I literally don’t have time to do anything but put up this translation of a letter that is once again being only partially translated and taken out of context in the press. Here is what Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos wrote to the French Bishop Pierre Pican, who had been imprisoned when he refused to turn in (denoncer) a priest who had sexually abused minors. This is my translation from the French; the letter was reproduced in a Rome Reports video - (I had to stop the video several times to get it all):
September 8, 2001
Most Reverend Excellency:
I am writing to you as Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, charged with collaborating in the responsibility of the common Father over all the priests of the world.
I congratulate you for not having denounced a priest to the civil administration. You have acted well, and I rejoice to have a brother in the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and of all the other bishops of the world, has preferred prison rather than denouncing his priest-son.
In reality, the relationship between priests and their bishop is not professional; it is a sacramental relationship, which creates very special bonds of spiritual paternity. This theme has been amply taken up again by the last Council, by the 1971 Synod of Bishops and the one in 1991. The bishop has other means of acting, as the Episcopal Conference of France has recently recalled; but a bishop cannot be required to make the denunciation himself. In all civilized legal systems it is recognized that close relatives have the opportunity not to testify against a direct relative.
We recall to you in your regard the words of St. Paul: “My imprisonment has become well known in Christ throughout the whole Praetorium and to all the rest, and the majority of the brothers, having taken encouragement in the Lord from my imprisonment, dare more than ever to proclaim the word fearlessly” (Phil. 1:13-14).
This Congregation, in order to encourage brothers in the episcopate in this very sensitive area, will send copies of this letter to all the conferences of bishops.
Assuring you of my fraternal closeness in the Lord, I greet you with your auxiliary and the whole of your diocese.
Dario Castrillon H
Fernando Jimines(?)
Bureau Chief
If we knew what the French episcopate said and what “other ways of acting” a bishop was supposed to have in such situations, we’d have a better idea of what he was talking about.
Also, was the bishop being asked to turn the priest in, or to testify against him in court? If it were the first, then Castrillon Hoyos’ reasoning wouldn’t apply; I’m not sure it would apply anyway. I expect we really don’t have all the necessary information to understand this yet.
One way of understanding (not necessarily excusing) this attitude would be to recall that to the more traditional wing of the French Church, the modern state is an enemy not to be trusted, much more so than anyone in the U.S. is capable of grasping. This is all the result of the French Revolution of 1789 and the fact that the modern French state from the beginning was highly anti-religious and anti-clerical.
A traditionalist like Castrillon Hoyos would most likely share this attitude. He might have suspected that a Church trial would be more fair, etc. Once again, I don’t want to excuse his attitude if he were aware that the priest was guilty, but this might help explain it.
Sorry I don’t have more right now. It’s been an exhausting day and I have to turn in.
Update: April 18
Only now am I am to find out a little more. Just as I feared, the press is distorting this out of all proportion — again. Worse yet, the cardinal has claimed that Pope John Paul II authorized him to send the letter to all the bishops in the world. The headlines are screaming: “John Paul backed praise for hiding abuse” ((story by Reuters).
Well, the headlines are wrong to start with. The cardinal was not telling bishops to protect pedophile priests. The specific crime the priest was charged with is never mentioned in the letter. It’s more in the way of a defense of a universal principle of relations between Church and state. It’s saying: what is the limit for the State’s interference within the Church, specifically the relationship between a priest and a bishop? It’s a valid question, no matter what the specific case was about.
Does anyone remember the movie “Reversal of Fortune”? In it, lawyer Alan Dershowitz got hell from his own law students for taking Claus von Bulow’s appeal. They figured the guy was too obviously guilty, and that it was wrong to defend him. Dershowitz replied that he wasn’t defending the guy so much was he was defending the legal principle of someone getting a fair trial. Because he defended those principles, was he defending murder?
Of course, people are going to neglect common sense ideas like this in the present hysteria.
This doesn’t mean that I agree with everything that Castrillon Hoyos was defending. And it is true that he seemed to defend at least one molesting priest, Fr. Trupia of Tuscon; the Congregation for the clergy declared him exonerated; when the case was turned over to Ratzinger at the CDF - this was after 2001 — he got what he deserved.
But there is a huge amount we still don’t know about what was going on. Let’s not jump the gun here.
Update:
Well there is still more; it seems that just Friday Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos claimed at a conference in Murcia, Spain that the priest in question, a Père Bissey, had told Bishop Pican of the abuse he had committed in confession, and that is why the bishop couldn’t denounce him. (news story) The Reuters story (something I didn’t notice when I first looked at it) points out that this could not be the case, because the bishop admitted on the stand that he learned of the abuse from the priest in a “private conversation,” which is not immune from the law. And of course, if the case had really been about the seal of confession, the letter would have said so.
So what exactly is going on here? I’m afraid I won’t have much if any time to research this because of other obligations, but finding the actual text of the original Spanish news article on the conference would be helpful.
One thing is certain: this cardinal has a classic case of foot-in-mouth disease. Not only that, he can’t keep his story straight. And his dragging John Paul II into this mess was certainly unnecessary — and bound to be disastrous.
Filed under: sexual abuse by priests | |No Comments
Once more unto the breach – because the AP and the New York Times have once more demonstrated their lack of understanding of the Church and their outright malice in the latest attempt to smear Pope Benedict by selective documentation and misinterpretation of his role as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in regard to cases involving sexual abuse of minors.
I learned about this newest case from Yahoo News yesterday afternoon (April 9) while working at the library. I could hardly bear to read it; it was a tangle of insinuations, botched chronology, missing dates, lack of context and sheer ignorance. Around 6:30, as I was about to leave for home, I got an e-mail from a reader of my blog, who pointed out to me that the Italian papers had a facsimile of a Latin letter by Ratzinger, the only document by him in the case. I printed out copies of this and the Italian articles and read them at dinner.
The AP story had translated parts of Ratzinger’s Latin letter, which was to the bishop of Oakland, Ca, about the laicization of a priest who had abused minors, and it made him look heartless and uncaring about the gravity of the issue, citing as reason for the delay the youth of the petitioner, and the need to consider “the common good” and “the good of the Universal Church.”
I thought this letter was not exactly what it seemed; at home I began to translate it; only later did I find the New York Times article which had a translation. Nevertheless, the NYT neglected to translate another letter with important facts in it. Here are the facts in order (which is more than you will get from the MSM).
Fr. Steven Kiesle, a young priest in the diocese of Oakland, had molested at least six young boys between the ages of eleven and thirteen. He was arrested in 1978, pleaded no contest and received a three-year suspended sentence. He requested laicization voluntarily in 1981.
Fr. Kiesle’s request for dispensation from priestly obligations and celibacy was one of many that would be pouring into the Holy See that year – a mass exodus from the priesthood had begun in the late 60’s and early 70’s. The petitioners ranged from those who wanted to leave the ministry to marry to those who wanted to join Marxist revolutionaries, become Buddhists or otherwise “find themselves.” (I have corrected this somewhat: see the update below). A priest who asked to be voluntarily released who was also a pedophile would be unusual. It’s not clear if that was the exact reason that Kiesle requested the dispensation. But the pastor and the bishop both agreed that he was an immature individual who had little taste for the ministry and never should have become a priest.
The request on Kiesle’s behalf went to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which at that time handled these dispensations. It should be noted that it did not go there because Fr. Kiesle had committed sexual abuse of minors. The CDF did not gain control of such cases until 2001. It would have been treated simply as a laicization case.
Neither the AP nor the NYT article mentions the fact that the first letters sent by Fr. Kiesle’s pastor (April 25, 1981) and Bishop Cummins (May 8, 1981) were addressed not to Cardinal Ratzinger but to Franjo Cardinal Seper, Ratzinger’s predecessor as Prefect of the CDF. (1) Ratzinger did not take office until February 1982.
A reply came from Cardinal Seper on November 17, 1981. He requested more information, among other things asking the bishop “not to neglect to send together with the records your votum (vow, solemn statement) on not fearing scandal.” It is obvious from the way that this is put that this is a declaration that the bishop was required to make as part of canon law, and – note carefully – would be required for ALL requests for laicization. In it, the bishop declares that releasing this priest from his ministry and vow of celibacy would not create scandal. It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that this particular case involved sexual abuse of a minor. It doesn’t necessarily mean that either Seper or Ratzinger feared scandal because such abuse was involved. Of course, neither the AP nor the New York Times thought to make this clear, probably because of a complete lack of understanding of canon law.
Bishop Cummins forwarded the information, and on February 1, 1982, wrote to the new Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger with yet more details.
There was no reply from Ratzinger’s office. The bishop wrote again on September 24, 1982, and received a reply on October 21 saying that no further information could be given at that time.
Now (though neither the Times nor the AP mentions this) there is a three-year gap with no communications from the diocese of Oakland to the CDF; on September 13, 1985, Bishop Cummins again writes to Ratzinger (and mentions that his last communication was in September 1982). This time he got a more detailed reply. The fact that he received a reply may be due to the fact that unlike the previous times he actually forwarded it to the Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S. to be put in his diplomatic pouch. These letters would be more likely to be considered than the general flood of mail in the offices of the CDF.
Here is my translation of Ratzinger’s reply – I had just about finished when I learned that the New York Times had provided one. However, I think mine is better; at least more idiomatic.
November 6, 1985
Sacred Congregation
For the Doctrine of the Faith
Prot. No. 469/81a
Most Excellent Lord,
Having received your letter of September 13 of this year, about the case of the dispensation from all sacerdotal obligations which concerns Rev. Steven Miller KIESLE, of your diocese, it is my duty to communicate to you as follows.
Although this Dicastery considers the reason cited for dispensation in the case being asked about to be of grave importance, it nevertheless judges it necessary to consider along with the good of the petitioner, the good of the Universal Church, and therefore it is unable to make light of the detriment that the granting of the dispensation may cause to the Christian community, attentive especially to the youth of the petitioner.
It is fitting therefore, for this Congregation to subject this kind of case (2) to a more careful examination, which necessarily requires a longer period of time.
In the meantime, may Your Excellency not fail to attend to the petitioner as much as possible with paternal care, and in addition explaining to him the reason for acting of this Dicastery, which is habitually accustomed to proceed with an eye first of all to the common good.
Having met with this fortuitous occasion, I attest to you my great esteem, remaining
Your Rev. Excellency’s most devoted(?) [add.mus]
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
The most Excellent and Reverent Lord
John S. Cummins
Ordinary of Oakland
When I first read the letter, it struck me as being so remote and bloodless and unconnected to the actual case, that I thought “It can’t be anything but a form letter.” I wrote this to the man who sent me the original e-mai. Soon after getting home, I found a discussion of the letter on Fr. Z’s blog; he calls it “boilerplate” – and he used to write letters for the Vatican. As I mentioned the Congregation must have been getting a steady stream of requests for laicization when this was written. Essentially the letter is saying, “your request is important to us, we’ll get to it soon, please be patient.” It may not even have been written by Ratzinger personally but perhaps with a stamped signature.
Unfortunately, since the AP and New York Times stories were published on a Friday night (perhaps deliberately), there was very little official comment from the Vatican. Father Lombardi did say that Ratzinger’s letter “was taken out of context.” However, points made by an anonymous source, a canon lawyer, that appeared the same day in the Italian paper La Repubbica, are important. He explained: “It was and still is the practice that dispensations from the priesthood were not granted to those who asked for them until they turned 40 (except for particular cases, where there were children).” When Kiesle was granted his dispensation in 1987, he was 40 years old. He was in fact, undoubtedly laicized in the end by Ratzinger, but this letter is not in the files. (No need to wonder why; the files were supplied by attack lawyer Jeff Anderson, who wants to sue the Vatican in U.S. federal court for its supposed complicity in sexual abuse by the clergy).
It’s more than likely that any application for laicization from someone under the age of 40 would have gotten this reply when their case first came in, and then their individual case would have been looked at and judged more personally.
But hadn’t the case already been there for some time? Why hadn’t it been attended to? According to the AP story, the file was lost at one time – perhaps bouncing around another dicastery in the Vatican. Perhaps it was only returned to the CDF at this time and was treated as a new file/case. It’s impossible to tell on the basis of the meager documentation given in the NYT article, which evidently didn’t reproduce everything in the lawyer’s files.
So it would be very imprudent for anyone (and of course, the NYT has shown itself very imprudent on this subject) to take this letter as an actual comment on any aspect of Fr. Kiesle’s case or the reason for the delay.
The usual bureaucratic red tape, and perhaps Ratzinger’s self-admitted lack of administrative skills, as well as the changeover from Seper’s administration of the Congregation to his, could have caused the delay or losing of the file. (Also see the update below)
Several other things to note: the articles, especially the AP one, mention that the Kiesle was allowed for a time to volunteer for a youth program after he was removed from ministry, until a youth minister insisted on him being removed. It seemed to me that the AP journalist wrote of this in such a way as to suggest that the delay in laicizing the priest (the final decision on which rested with the Pope, not Cardinal Ratzinger) was endangering children. This is completely ridiculous. Fr. Kiesle’s local bishop had the task of restricting his ministry in such a way that he did not endanger children. He evidently did a bad job at this, but this has nothing to do with the fact that the priest had not been laicized. A local bishop has full powers to restrict a priest’s ministry in any way he sees fit (a power he actually loses once a priest has been laicized and no longer under obedience to his bishop—read what Jimmy Akin has to say about this). If the bishop cannot keep the priest from children, the police can and should. What a distant official in Rome does cannot affect this at all.
That the police gave Fr. Kiesle only probation is a crime. That his bishop was careless in keeping him from children is a crime. But whatever the New York Times may think, bureaucratic bungling is not a crime. But reporting this shoddy and malicious is. Where do we apply to “laicize” incompetent journalists?
I will correct and update this story as more comes in.
Update: Saturday, April 10: I saw this great piece by Fr. Fessio last night (or rather way into the early hours of the morning) but was too tired to link to it. He supplies much-needed context: while hundreds if not thousands of laicizations a year were granted during the papacy of Pope Paul VI, under John Paul II, who instituted a stricter policy, in order to protect the nature of the priesthood, it was almost impossible for a bishop to get a laicization of a priest by 1980. This undoubtedly continued for some time afterward. Here is another good reason for the bureaucratic backlog: the much stricter standards for laicization.
Another update, same day: Because I’m too infuriated to work! What infuriated me perhaps even more than the new accusations was the fact that the AP story repeated its own original reporting on another case from Tucson, where Cardinal Ratzinger had supposedly tried to block the laicization of Fr. Michael Teta for soliciting young men in the confessional, a laicization that the local bishop, Manuel Moreno, had pleaded for. They repeated this lie, although the story had already been exploded by the bishop who succeeded Moreno, Gerald Kicanas.
A reporter for the Arizona Star came to Kicanas bristling with the question: “Why shouldn’t I draw the conclusion that Ratzinger’s office significantly delayed resolution of the Teta case, considering the documents I have before me?” The good bishop kindly pointed out to her that she had completely misread her documents. The 1997 letter to Ratzinger, pleading with him to expedite the case, which had been going on for seven years — the letter was the basis for the AP’s original claims and the reporter’s truculent question — was in fact sent to Ratzinger with the records for the just-concluded diocesan trial, and the decision of the judges formally asking for Teta’s laicization. In fact, this was the first point that Ratzinger was even going to be able to process the case. The seven-year delay mentioned was in the diocese! In addition, Kicanas said that his office had received several requests from 1992-97 from the CDF asking them to please hurry up with the trial! In fact, Ratzinger’s office quickly granted the laicization request, but the case dragged on for years on appeal. I cannot believe that AP was unaware of this. So even when it has been absolutely proven that Cardinal Ratzinger handled a case in an exemplary way, he still must be blamed, but now, it is necessary for the press not just to obfuscate, but to out-and-out lie and refuse to correct their stories.
Update: Sunday April 11: At last the AP is supplying some more details and dates. I’ll include just the relevant parts.
Timeline of defrocked priest Stephen Kiesle
The Associated Press
Posted: 04/09/2010 05:04:15 PM PDT
Kiesle timeline
# 1975-1978: Assigned to Our Lady of the Rosary in Union City.
# August 1978: Kiesle is arrested and pleads no contest to lewd conduct, a misdemeanor, for tying up and molesting two boys. Sentenced to three years of probation. His record is later expunged.
# 1978-1981: Takes extended leave of absence, attends counseling and reports regularly to probation officer.
# July 1981: Oakland Bishop John Cummins sends Kiesle’s file to the Vatican in support of the priest’s petition for laicization, or defrocking.
# November 1981: Vatican asks for more information.
# 1982: Kiesle moves to Pinole.
# February 1982: Cummins writes to Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, providing additional information and warning of possible scandal if Kiesle is not defrocked.
# September 1982: Oakland diocese official writes Ratzinger asking for update.
# September 1983: Cummins visits Rome, discusses Kiesle case with Vatican officials.
# December 1983: Vatican official writes Oakland to say Kiesle’s file can’t be found and they should resubmit materials.
# January 1984: Cummins writes a Vatican official to inquire about status of Kiesle file.
# 1985: Kiesle volunteers as a youth minister at St. Joseph’s Church in Pinole.
# September 1985: Cummins writes Ratzinger asking about status of Kiesle case.
# November 1985: Ratzinger writes to Cummins about Kiesle case.
# December 1985: A memo from diocese officials discusses writing to Ratzinger again to stress the risk of scandal if Kiesle’s case is delayed.
# 1987: Kiesle is defrocked.
So it’s clear that the reason there was no answer from Ratzinger for some time was because the file was lost. Odd that Bishop Cummins didn’t mention that in his letter.
Source: Associated Press
Update Monday April 12: This report is evidently from late Saturday, but I wasn’t able to post it until now.
In a Reuters story, a California-based Vatican lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, says that the 1985 missive from Ratzinger was “a form letter typically sent out initially with respect to laicization cases.”
Just as I’ve been saying all along.
NOTES
(1) Two of the internal memos from the Oakland diocese say that Ratzinger wrote the November 17, 1981 letter, but this is obviously incorrect, and must be due to a failure of memory on the part of the bishop. The letter has Seper’s signature on it.
(2) The AP mistranslated this as “these incidents,” evidently trying to make it sound as the Pope were referring to sexual abuse, where it is clear that it is referring to the petitioner’s request for dispensation from his vows.
*****
This cartoon is so very relevant:
Filed under: Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Paul VI, sexual abuse by priests | |10 Comments
