tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10038924.post2759440218444144838..comments2024-03-15T19:18:22.881-05:00Comments on Servant and Steward: Goodstein attemps to link Pope to scandal, fails againRev. Daren J. Zehnle, J.C.L., K.C.H.S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/12695652221601203187noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10038924.post-56337930627397146072010-04-11T17:39:29.711-05:002010-04-11T17:39:29.711-05:00That is such an important point which you make abo...That is such an important point which you make about the grounds given by Kiesle in his application. I assumed for no reason that CDF would have been supplied with the full story. <br /><br />Even after reading yesterday your enlightening posting it took 24 hours for the deep depression which these recent events caused to depart. I am so blessed by all I have received from the Church but never have I experienced such shame.<br /><br />Thanks for being able to go to church today and pray before the picture of the Divine Mercy.<br /><br /><br />May God continue to bless your pastoral work, Father Zehnle.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08170357308639806091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10038924.post-45402258478236429572010-04-11T13:43:56.249-05:002010-04-11T13:43:56.249-05:00To be honest, Steve, it wouldn't surprise me a...To be honest, Steve, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Bishop Cummins hadn't revealed the nature of the case. If he were interested in doing so he would have requested the laicization of Kiesle himself.<br /><br />If we could be certain that the reporters would not do what they've already done by ignoring facts, then I'd be happy for the Holy Father to sit down to an interview.<br /><br />As it is, we have no reason to believe that evident - even his words - won't be twisted or even ignored. Simply consider the NYT case where is supposed to have encouraged the transfer of a priest at a meeting for which he wasn't even present.<br /><br />You're right to say that infallibility does not apply to administrative matters. Even so, you're asking for an admission of what - according to those involved in these cases and the documents themselves - did not occur.<br /><br />As to your earlier question about who used to handle these abuse cases, I believe it was the Rota.Rev. Daren J. Zehnle, J.C.L., K.C.H.S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12695652221601203187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10038924.post-19070445387418142502010-04-11T13:32:53.202-05:002010-04-11T13:32:53.202-05:00Father,
Thanks for your response, thoughtful as a...Father,<br /><br />Thanks for your response, thoughtful as always. I get the impression, though, that you think the CDF (including Card. Ratzinger) was NOT given any background information about Kiesle's history (particularly his conviction for child molestation). Yet Bish. Cummins' statement in support of laicization seems to suggest that he did reveal some or all of that history to the CDF: "... 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." I get the really strong impression that he made the "nature" of Kiesle's situation clear to the CDF. Yes, it sure would be nice to know the facts on that point one way or the other, but wouldn't it seem unlikely that Cummins would bring up "the nature of the case" without any supporting details? He was, after all, trying to persuade the CDF to act. Rhetorically speaking, I have to assume the bishop would have supported his "thesis" with details.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I'm not someone who thinks the pope absolutely has to resign, but I do think the church would be served by him sitting down for an in-depth interview (not conducted through spokespersons) in which he replies to specific questions about a number of cases where he was archbishop, signed an important letter, etc. Not much (any?) precedent for that, I know, but what I recall of the doctrine of infalibility is that there is no pretense that the pope (either while pope or prior to that time) is incapable of making mistakes, making poor administrative decisions, failing to exercise due diligence on occasion, etc. The pope's admission of that in specific cases would HELP, not hurt, the healing (in my humble opinion).<br /><br />Peace to you, Father.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17284905121465747077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10038924.post-8718184926366288382010-04-11T07:00:47.785-05:002010-04-11T07:00:47.785-05:00I'm always happy to answer your questions, Ste...I'm always happy to answer your questions, Steve.<br /><br />1. A good question and I regret to say that I'm not certain. I haven't been able to track down an English version of the document that transferred such cases to the CDF. The CDF had part of the Kiesle case becasue he himself (not the Diocese) requested dismissal from the clerical state - without, it seems, any mention of the abuse scandal in his past - and the CDF has always handled these cases. Had Cardinal Ratzinger known of the abuse I'm certain the case would have been transferred.<br /><br />2. Yes, but in no relation to the Kiesle's past abuse.<br /><br />3/4. In the context of further examining a man's maturity. It was the custom not to release a priest from the obligations of celibacy until his fortieth birthday, in part, I suspect, to make sure his request was not simply a passing desire. Once dismissed from the clerical state one isn't simply brought back in. And if the Vatican is unaware of any history of abuse, it would naturally see a priest "leaving the priesthood" as a scandal to the faithful.<br /><br />They are certainly reasonable questions and I hope I have provided reasonable answers.<br /><br />I'm appalled at the way the New York Times and the Associated Press simply leaves out essential matters pertaining to these cases in their attempt to destroy the Pope.Rev. Daren J. Zehnle, J.C.L., K.C.H.S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12695652221601203187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10038924.post-36150591735120106132010-04-10T14:37:31.707-05:002010-04-10T14:37:31.707-05:00Many thanks for this very helpful posting. It is s...Many thanks for this very helpful posting. It is so sad that none of those in leadership in our Church would give people like me who are deeply distressed by recent events, the kind of analysis this posting has done. I feel like those who lived through the agony of the reformation - everything which they hold dear falling around them while clowns like the papal preacher play self-serving inhouse court politics. Many thanks Fr Zehnle,Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08170357308639806091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10038924.post-81606699249462309082010-04-10T09:22:33.158-05:002010-04-10T09:22:33.158-05:00Father, if you don't mind, a couple questions....Father, if you don't mind, a couple questions...<br /><br />1. Which office at the Vatican would have been responsible circa 1985 for handling laicization requests (either from a bishop or a priest himself)? If that was the Congregation for Clergy, shouldn't Card. Ratzinger have sent the request over there pronto, rather than handle a request for which his office was not responsible? Especially considering the reason (crime) which was the basis for the request?<br /><br />2. In responding to the bishop's letter with his own letter (bearing his signature), didn't Card. Ratzinger effectively take on some degree of responsibility for how the laicization procedure progressed or didn't progress?<br /><br />3. In WHAT context, exactly, would delaying the abuser's laicization for the "general good of the church" make any sense? Maybe the Latin has been poorly translated? Aside from that, how could delaying or "studying" the question really serve the welfare of the faithful or the faith?<br /><br />4. Why would Card. Ratzinger argue for considering the matter further (i.e., delaying laicization) based on the priest's relative youth? Doesn't that point from the cardinal's letter suggest undue concern for how the process would effect the priest, rather than the Catholic faithful (especially vulnerable children)?<br /><br />Yes, these are loaded questions, but I think they are reasonable ones. Like many Catholics I know, I'm not incensed by what or how the NY Times has reported this scandal; rather, I'm appalled (in a stomach-turning way) by questions such as those above, questions I can't easily put aside. Thank you in advance for your time in responding. (You're a decent guy and a smart man, and I respect you even when we disagree.)Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17284905121465747077noreply@blogger.com