10 April 2010

AP exclusive with false headline

The Associated Press has an exclusive story by Gillian Faucus and others titled, "Future Pope stalled Calif. pedophile case." Let's see how true this headline reads [toward the end of the article we'll see the headline is, naturally, unfounded]:

LOS ANGELES – Four years after a California priest and convicted child molester asked to be defrocked, his bishop pleaded with the future Pope Benedict XVI to remove the man from the priesthood. Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger replied, urging caution.

"Consider the good of the Universal Church," Ratzinger wrote in a 1985 letter to Oakland Bishop John Cummins. "It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time."

Two more years would pass before the Vatican acted on the Rev. Stephen Kiesle's request to leave.

A copy of the letter, typewritten in Latin and signed by Ratzinger, was obtained by The Associated Press. It constitutes the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office [urging caution for the sake of justice is now "blocking"?].

The letter is part of years of correspondence beginning in 1981 between the diocese of Oakland and the Vatican about Kiesle, who pleaded no contest to misdemeanors involving child molestation in 1978.

The Vatican confirmed Friday that the letter had Ratzinger's signature and said it was a typical form letter used in laicization cases. Attorney Jeffrey Lena said the matter proceeded "expeditiously, not by modern standards, but by those standards at the time," and that the bishop was to guard against further abuse.

Another spokesman, the Rev. Ciro Benedettini, said the letter showed no attempt at a cover-up. "The then-Cardinal Ratzinger didn't cover up the case, but as the letter clearly shows, made clear the need to study the case with more attention, taking into account the good of all involved."

The diocese recommended removing Kiesle (KEEZ'-lee) from the priesthood in 1981, the year Ratzinger was appointed to head the Vatican office that shared responsibility for disciplining abusive priests [Remember: this is before Ratzinger's office was in charge of such cases; the CDF did not receive them until 2001].

The case then languished for four years at the Vatican before Ratzinger finally wrote to the Oakland bishop. It was two more years before Kiesle was removed; during that time he continued to do volunteer work with children through the church [which is the fault of the local Bishop, not of Ratzinger who didn't arrive as head of the CDF until after the priest remained in such work].

In the November 1985 letter, Ratzinger says the arguments for removing Kiesle were of "grave significance" but added that such actions required very careful review and more time. He also urged the bishop to provide Kiesle with "as much paternal care as possible" while awaiting the decision, according to a translation for AP by Professor Thomas Habinek, chairman of the University of Southern California Classics Department.

Lena, the Vatican attorney, said "paternal care" was a way of telling the bishop he was responsible for keeping Kiesle out of trouble. Lena said Kiesle was not accused of any child abuse in the 5 1/2 years it took for the Vatican to act on the laicization.

The future pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the "good of the universal church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age." Kiesle was 38 at the time.

Kiesle had been sentenced in 1978 to three years' probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young boys in a San Francisco Bay area church rectory.

Cummins, the bishop, told the Vatican that the priest took a leave of absence [so he wasn't in active ministry during the proceedings] and met with a therapist and his probation officer during the three years. It's not clear from the file where Kiesle lived during those years, but Cummins mentions temporary assignments in neighboring dioceses that never worked out.

As his probation ended in 1981, Kiesle asked to leave the priesthood and the diocese submitted papers to Rome to defrock him.

In his earliest letter to Ratzinger, Cummins warned that returning Kiesle to ministry would cause more of a scandal than stripping him of his priestly powers [that's all well and good, but the decision to return to Kiesle rested not with Rome but with Cummins].

"It is my conviction that there would be no scandal [seriously?!] if this petition were granted and that 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," Cummins wrote in 1982 [Bishop Cummins could remove Kiesle from active ministry without approval or intervention from the CDF].

While papers obtained by the AP include only one letter with Ratzinger's signature, correspondence and internal memos from the diocese refer to a letter dated Nov. 17, 1981, from the then-cardinal to the bishop. Ratzinger was appointed to head the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a week later.

California church officials wrote to Ratzinger at least three times to check on the status of Kiesle's case and Cummins discussed the case with officials during a Vatican visit, according to correspondence. At one point, a Vatican official wrote to say the file may have been lost and suggested resubmitting materials [if true, that is not the fault of Ratzinger].

Diocese officials considered writing Ratzinger again after they received his 1985 response to impress upon him that leaving Kiesle in the ministry would harm the church [he was already not in active ministry, according to this article], Rev. George Mockel wrote in a memo to the Oakland bishop.

"My own reading of this letter is that basically they are going to sit on it until Steve gets quite a bit older," the memo said. "Despite his young age, the particular and unique circumstances of this case would seem to make it a greater scandal if he were not laicized."

As Kiesle's fate was being weighed in Rome, the priest returned to suburban Pinole to volunteer as a youth minister at St. Joseph Church, where he had been associate pastor from 1972-75.

Kiesle was ultimately laicized on Feb. 13, 1987, though the documents do not indicate how or why. They also don't say what role — if any — Ratzinger had in the decision [So...the headline is false? I suspected as much. If the role of Ratzinger cannot be determined the AP has no right to run such a headline].

Kiesle continued to volunteer with children, according to Maurine Behrend, who worked in the Oakland diocese's youth ministry office in the 1980s. After learning of his history, Behrend complained to church officials. When nothing was done she wrote a letter, which she showed to the AP.

"Obviously nothing has been done after EIGHT months of repeated notifications," she wrote. "How are we supposed to have confidence in the system when nothing is done? A simple phone call to the pastor from the bishop is all it would take." [Again, this would be the fault of the local bishop.]

She eventually confronted Cummins at a confirmation and Kiesle was gone a short time later, Behrend said.

Kiesle, who married after leaving the priesthood, was arrested and charged in 2002 with 13 counts of child molestation from the 1970s. All but two were thrown out after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a California law extending the statute of limitations.

He pleaded no contest in 2004 to a felony for molesting a young girl in his Truckee home in 1995 and was sentenced to six years in state prison.

Kiesle, now 63 and a registered sex offender, lives in a Walnut Creek gated community, according to his address listed on the Megan's Law sex registry. An AP reporter was turned away when attempting to reach him for comment.

William Gagen, an attorney who represented Kiesle in 2002, did not return a call for comment.

More than a half-dozen victims reached a settlement in 2005 with the Oakland diocese alleging Kiesle had molested them as young children.

"He admitted molesting many children and bragged that he was the Pied Piper and said he tried to molest every child that sat on his lap," said Lewis VanBlois, an attorney for six Kiesle victims who interviewed the former priest in prison. "When asked how many children he had molested over the years, he said 'tons.'"

Cummins, 82 and now retired, initially told the AP he did not recall writing to Ratzinger about Kiesle, but he remembered when shown the letter with his signature on Friday. He said things had changed over the past quarter-century.

"When he (Ratzinger) took over I think he was following what was the practice of the time, that Pope John Paul was slowing these things down. You didn't just walk out of the priesthood then," Cummins said.

"These things were slow and their idea of thoroughness was a little more than ours. We were in a situation that was hands-on, with personal reaction."

Documents obtained by the AP last week revealed similar instances of Vatican stalling in cases involving two Arizona clergy.

In one case, the future pope took over the abuse case of the Rev. Michael Teta of Tucson, Ariz., then let it languish at the Vatican for years despite repeated pleas from the bishop for the man to be removed from the priesthood.

In the second, the bishop called Msgr. Robert Trupia a "major risk factor" in a letter to Ratzinger. There is no indication in those files that Ratzinger responded [did those under him respond? Remember again: the CDF did not take responsibility for these cases until 2001. The article makes no mention regarding the date of these letters].

The Vatican has called the accusations "absolutely groundless" and said the facts were being misrepresented [as indeed they are].

Update: You can read Fr. Zuhlsdorf's take on the article here.


  1. The Times has this same topic today by Laurie Goodstein and another writer ( I think the Catholic blogs may be motivating the Times rather than stopping them):


    Forget the persons involved like Ratzinger at the time...forget all personal blame for a minute, what does the story tell about system problems in not leaving laicization to local Bishops when a priest abuser himself desires laicization? We too quickly use a canard that the Church in Rome moves slowly and wisely. It should move slowly in matters that are enhanced by slowness such as changes in liturgy. In other matters, we should resemble the absolute quickness of Christ when He saw the moneychangers filling up those parts of the temple precincts that were reserved for Gentiles who wanted to pray with the Jews. Christ did not follow any slow and wise procedure. He made a whip of cords and drove the money changers out immediately.
    This Oakland case was one in which one of the money changers wanted to be released from the priesthood and his bishop wanted him to be released and Rome went into "slow and wise" mode about a man who tied up two children and sexually abused them in the rectory. What possible priestly potential did Benedict or anyone there in Rome see in this man so as to delay his request to leave the priesthood.

    And what neither Rome nor the Times will address is whether Rome really has sufficient budget and personnel on salary there at the Vatican to expedite a myriad number of canonically challenged cases from all over the world.
    Is the slowness there in the Vatican a special wisdom or is it that cases from all over the world enter and sit on desks forever since the work force should really be about 100 times the size that is there. Recently Angelina Jolie gave 1 million to Haiti after the quake; the Vatican was hoping their stamp venture would allow them to raise $200,000 for the same cause of that Catholic predominant country. Is some of this slowness to act in Rome really about money and personnel shortages? If so, tax each Catholic rich or poor $2 per year and that would give the Vatican 2 billion per year for personnel expansion, to pay consultancies about fixing our system and to establish think tanks to research our problems like how this whole car wreck of a period lasted so long in the first place.

  2. I have to disagree with you that the blogs are encouraging the media; they have one goal: to destroy the Pope.

    Their refusal to check facts, report accurately, and issue corrections is evidence of this.

    The case of Kiesle as it was brought before the CDF did not involve his history of abuse. Kiesle himself requested to dismissed from the clerical state. If Rome is unaware of such a history, Rome cannot be blamed for not taking it into consideration. It must also be remembered that the CDF was not at that time in charge of handling cases of clerical sexual abuse (unless it involved the confessional, which this case did not).