I had read about it in my days at Wal-Mart, when I spent a lot of time on the Internet, ostensibly cruising for articles for the students to read, really just killing time. Everybody could see the train hurtling towards us, and most of us were tied with fear to the tracks. I would run through the office at class-time, rounding up the students, who promised to come to class, and variably did. It left a lot of time for reading.
So I had stumbled across the Minnesota lawyer, Jeff Anderson, who has made it his business—in both senses—to represent victims of sexual abuse. And today, he’s telling, via CNN, the next pope the sensible steps that need to be taken to protect kids from their priests.
Anderson, of course, comes at the question with—if not bias—at least a definite point of view. But even so, I was surprised by this statement:
He issued Vatican orders directing cardinals, archbishops and bishops to keep credibly accused priests in ministry, to move them to a different parish or to keep them in the priesthood because they were too young, too infirm or their removal would cause too much scandal for the church.
Well, that’s pretty strong. The question, of course, is whether it’s true.
Short answer—yes.
The church’s own evidence hangs them.
The paper trail begins in 1981, when the Church of the Good Shepherd writes a letter to the then head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (strongly thought about omitting capitals, as well as putting in quotes…) concerning a priest who wants out. Seems he had—remember that old demon?—a dominant, and very Catholic mother, who pushed her kid into the seminary, and then gloated about and basked in it in social circles.
The son, Stephen Kiesle, had a curious habit. It was almost impossible, the letter states, to get him to do stuff like visit the sick, counsel families or individuals, or any of the other little jobs that priests are supposed to do. Instead, he wants to…
…do I have to finish that sentence?
Right, so he was working in the CCD program with children and teens. But curiously, it’s only mentioned in the sixth paragraph that he’s committed some “improprieties” with the kids.
Two weeks later, the Diocese of Oakland writes, also recommending that the priest request for dispensation from his holy vow of becoming a priest. In this letter, the same “improper” behaviors are mentioned, as well as the fact that they were publicized and attracted great attention.
A month later, the bishop writes to the pope, and for the first time drops the news—in 1978 he was arrested and charged with “having sex with at least six young men between the ages of eleven and thirteen.”
Young men? How about teenagers, minimally, if not children?
So Kiesle fights nails and teeth (uñas y dientes) to clear his name, right? Wrong—“like Jesus,” he decides not to answer the charges against him, and pleads nolo contendere. So he’s given a three-year suspended sentence, and told to go into therapy.
Remember—there’s no evidence that anyone writes to the Vatican in 1978 with this news that has been so widely reported. The diocese first writes—apparently—when Kiesle decides he wants out.
Well then, the letters send the Vatican into a fluster of activity, right?
You’re not batting too high, today. In November, the Vatican writes back, asking for documents, but not, if my aged Latin serves me, anything more than ordination papers and the like.
Well, it’s a new year, 1982—four years after his conviction—and nothing is happening. John Cummins, Bishop of Oakland, writes first in February, then in September.
No response. Oh, except that in an interoffice memo it seems that the Vatican did write, saying that the “matter would be addressed at the appropriate time.” More damning, the Vatican apparently has received the case of the sexual abuse filed against Kiesle, which Oakland had sent on July 15, 1983.
So it’s another new year and Cummins writes again, mentioning the case and asking for “any information you can give.”
For eighteen months, nothing happens. Then Cummins writes directly to Ratzinger—who had, you remember, requested those documents four years ago—asking what’s up. And in November of 1985—eight years after Kiesle’s conviction, four years after the matter was brought to the attention of the Vatican—Ratzinger writes back:
Most Excellent Bishop
Having received your letter of September 13 of this year, regarding the matter of the removal from all priestly burdens pertaining to Rev. Stephen Miller Kiesle in your diocese, it is my duty to share with you the following:
This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner.
It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time.
In the meantime your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible and in addition to explain to same the rationale of this court, which is accustomed to proceed keeping the common good especially before its eyes.
Let me take this occasion to convey sentiments of the highest regard always to you.
Your most Reverend Excellency
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
(Text of 1985 Letter From Future Pope Benedict)
Following is the text of a November 1985 letter in Latin signed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to Oakland Bishop John S. Cummins. It was translated for The Associated Press by Thomas Habinek, chairman of the University of Southern California Classics Department.
Well, the boys in Oakland are scratching their heads over this one, but as an interoffice memo in the diocese states, it seems that “they (the Vatican) are basically going to sit on it until Steve gets quite a bit older.” So what to do?
Let me not make the same mistake as Ratzinger.
And that is, you ask?
Lose sight of the fact that we’re talking about kids. The good of the Universal Church is considered, his Excellency mustn’t be lacking in giving a child molester “pastoral care,” the common good is invoked, but none of them can get it into their heads—we got a priest fucking around with kids.
Oh, wait—finally someone does. And guess what? It’s a woman.
Who doesn’t write so much as snort and snarl.
She tries to be civil: “I need to inform you of my concern that a convicted child molester is currently the youth ministry coordinator at St. Joseph’s Parish in Pinole.”
She loses it, however, when she considers that she has been waving the red flag for eight months, and now Steve is planning his participation for Youth Day NEXT YEAR (her caps, not mine).
Finally, in 1987, Kiesle was defrocked. In 2002, he was again arrested and charged with 13 counts of child molestation. In 2004, he was again arrested, and convicted to 6 years for a molestation in 1995.
He’s now living as a registered sex offender in Walnut Creek.
No comments:
Post a Comment