Did an Employee of the Vatican Commit Crimes on US Territory?

Well, let’s start with two caveats. First, it may be that reality—subjected to the blazing light and sopping humidity of the tropics—gets a little warped. In fact, I once hesitantly breathed this theory to Harry, a native of Old San Juan.

“Of course,” he cried, and told me the following story:

A gringo comes to oversee a factory in a small mountain town. The factory is running well, but the workers tend to call in sick a day or two every week. What was wrong? Clearly, the workers were unhappy: the gringo sought to increase morale by giving them higher pay. The result? The workers now called in sick three times a week!

“They weren’t interested in money,” said Harry, “they just wanted enough for their rice and beans and a caneca (flask) of rum. So when they got paid more, they didn’t have to work as much. See?”

It makes total sense, really—it’s just a different way of thinking. And so after living here for over twenty years, and after having written well-past-exhaustively on the topic of priestly abuse, who’s to say that my own sense of reality isn’t a bit warped? 

Second caveat: being a blogger tends to lead to a sort of conspiracy mindset. You read a lot about something, and then go on to the next thing, and then—weeks or months later—the first thing crops up again. You’ve now forgotten most of what you read, which makes it easy to believe that Machiavellian forces are at work.

So now—at long last—let me tell you what I remember.

A lawyer in Minneapolis, Jeff Anderson, has been an early and rigorous fighter for justice for the victims of clerical abuse. And he has had to fight long and hard to get a few dioceses to reveal their internal records. Chicago, for example, released in January of this year a collection of over 6000 documents that exposed what was happening internally in the diocese.

That’s great, but it’s only half the story. Yes, if within the diocese’s records there are Vatican letters, you can get a glimpse of what is going on in the Vatican. But it frequently is the blandest, most opaque glimpse. So the logical thing to do would be to go to court and ask for the court to tell the Vatican to hand over its records. Especially logical since the diocese is required to report all cases of clerical abuse to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) which used to be the Holy Office, and which—more colorfully and forcefully—started out as the Inquisition.

Thus, local bishops were writing off to Ratzinger and the CDF, and guess what? God’s time is infinitely, majestically, gloriously… slow. So the bishops waited and waited, often for years at a time. In the meantime, the bishops were stuck with seriously sick priests; you can—almost—understand why they were shuffling them around to new victims in different parishes. What else could they do?

So what happened when lawyers went to court to ask the court to force the Vatican to reveal its records? Ah, cried the Vatican, but those bishops aren’t our employees! They are paid by the diocese, not the Vatican!

For this, the word jesuitry was made.

Hard shift to the southeast, specifically Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico—once defined by the US Supreme Court as not being the United States but pertaining to the United States (anybody up there get that? Drop me a line, if you do…)—falls within US jurisdiction.

And things have been a little strange in Arecibo. For one thing, six priests have been expelled in three years, and our local newspaper, El Nuevo Día, reports that there have been 20 cases of priestly abuse, as well as a federal lawsuit brought by one of the victims. Here’s what The New Day has to say in today’s electronic edition:

Fuentes de El Nuevo Día indicaron que agentes de ICE-HSI se acercaron al secretario interino de Justicia, César Miranda, y al fiscal general José Capó para colaborar e intercambiar información con la investigación que comenzó el gobierno estatal la semana pasada y así ellos también poder abarcar ángulos de jurisdicción federal.

“Hay mucho interés en indagar sobre los detalles de abuso sexual de menores por parte de sacerdotes y todo lo que ha salido publicado provoca que haya que actuar de inmediato”, dijo una fuente federal.

(“Sources for El Nuevo Día indicated that agents of IE-HIS approached the interim Secretary of Justice, César Miranda, and the Attorney General José Capó to collaborate and exchange information with the investigation which the state government began last week and thus to be able to also cover any angles that are of federal jurisdiction.

‘There’s a lot of interest in investigating the details of sexual abuse of minors on the part of priests, and everything that has come out publically makes it necessary to act immediately,’ said a federal source.”)

Now then, here the waters turn murky, as the runoff of politics surges into the pond.

The highest Catholic official on the island, Archbishop of San Juan Roberto González Nieves, is a strong proponent of independence and rubbed it a little too hard into people’s noses. So the statehooders had him investigated for four things, one of which was covering up abusive priests. And thus, in an investigation that lasted years, the papal nuncio—the Pope’s own ambassador and yes, a Vatican official—came to Puerto Rico, and were did he stay? Not in San Juan, but in…

…Arecibo.

The papal nuncio for the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico was Jozef Wesolowski, and where is he now? Apparently in the Vatican, where he fled—or was recalled—just before investigative news series was about to show him walking the malecón of Santo Domingo in search of something other than lovely seascapes.

Authorities in the Dominican Republic have in some accounts asked for extradition: the Vatican has no extradition policy and Wesolowski, as a diplomat, enjoys immunity. But there are reports that Wesolowski didn’t behave much better in Puerto Rico than he did in Santo Domingo. Here’s what the Dominican press said about Wesolowski in Puerto Rico:

Según los testimonios difundidos por Burgos, en su programa Código Calle, del canal 29 de Santiago, Wesolowski es acusado en Puerto Rico de encubrir a los sacerdotes pederastas.

Los fieles católicos se quejaron ante el obispo puertorriqueño monseñor Iñaqui y ante el propio Wesolowski, pero no recibieron el apoyo que esperaban.

Un seminario fue cerrado, pero todo se mantiene en silencio, y el obispo Iñaqui [Sic.] fue promovido, en lugar de ser sancionado.

(“According to witnesses’ statements broadcast by Burgos in his program Código Calle on channel 29 in Santiago, Wesolowski is accused in Puerto Rico of covering up pederast priests.

Faithful Catholics protested to Puerto Rican bishop Iñaki (former bishop of Arecibo) and in front of Wesolowski himself, but never received the support they expected.

A seminary was closed, but everything was kept silent, and the bishop Iñaqi was promoted, instead of sanctioned.”)

Remember what I said about reality being different in the sun-drench vibrant air of the tropics? We seem to have Wesolowski—a man now accused of pederasty—investigating the archbishop of San Juan for covering up…pederasty. Who’s guilty of what? I sure don’t know.

And am I wrong in thinking that…

…a Vatican official may have committed crimes in the United States? This case is unique, the case we’ve been waiting for. At long last, a US court has the right to petition the Vatican to release its records, its internal documents, its policies and directives to bishops. At last, we can throw open the doors of the Vatican and take a look inside.

Am I the only one who sees that?

One More Corrupt Archbishop

Why me?

Look guys, there are three major newspapers in Puerto Rico—El Nuevo Día, Primera Hora, and El Vocero. The first two are owned by the same company, but maintain separate staffs; the third is privately owned. All three have journalists, who are supposed to do stuff like sniff around, dig a bit of dirt, ask some questions, try and get some answers.

I, however, am not a journalist and know nothing about the profession, though I was exposed to many a breakfast / dinner rant by my father, who believed that the press was railroading Dick Nixon out of town. (Think the jury’s in on that…) So why do I have to step up to the plate? Isn’t that your job?

OK—here’s what I find seriously screwy. Two or three days ago, I reported that the archbishop of San Juan, Roberto González Nieves, had released a copy of a letter he had written to the Vatican. The letter expressed horror that he—González—had been viciously accused of four things, which he came right out and listed. They were:

1.     Protecting pedophile priests

2.     Investigating Reverend Edward Santana with no jurisdiction to do so

3.     Shared residences

4.     El Altar de la Patria

Right—I knew about the Altar, but what was the deal with the other three charges? I turned very trustingly to the press, and guess what?

You guys let me down.

Say whaaa?

We got the highest religious (stet) on the island coming out and saying that the Vatican is accusing him of protecting pedophile priests, and all you guys do is print the letter, state that González Nieves has said all he’s going to on the matter, shrug your shoulders and say, “yeah, whatever…?”

Guys—are you the church bulletin?

If not, maybe you should be making some calls, doing so digging, worrying about something other than—no idea who she is but I see her name all the time—Shakira.

All right, let’s do the unknowns in reverse order.

Despite what I initially thought about “shared residences,”—no, it doesn’t mean that González is living with anybody (though the rumor a decade ago was…OK, never mind). No, González came out in favor several years ago with a proposal that would make people living together under one roof eligible for three things: inheritance, hospital visitation rights, and inclusion in the medical plan of one of the partners. And no—it could be a straight couple or anybody, but the reality was that a whole lot of gay people would be, had it been approved, coming in the house por la cocina / through the kitchen (as we say down here)….

Right—so that was easy.

Now then, charges 2 and 1 are linked. But first, let’s do a little background.

González was born in 1950 in New Jersey, but went to school here in San Juan. He became a priest in 1977, worked in the Bronx until, in 1988, he was appointed auxiliary bishop for the See of Boston. Which at the time—and bells should definitely ring here—was under the head of Bernard Law.

Right—so you didn’t hear the bells. Let me spell it out—Law has cost the Catholic church tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in sex abuse payouts, and, though retired, he’s still very much in the church.

Right—so this morning at 3AM, when I woke craving jellybeans, I began to look up (OK, google) “González Nieves pederast priests.” And there’s nothing much there, except for one survivor network website that says, given Law’s heinous actions, that it wouldn’t be surprising if Gonzalez didn’t have some mud on his white Cossack (if that’s what it is)….

OK—brushed the teeth, went back to bed. And I resumed the search today, this time doing “Puerto Rico pedophile priests” or rather “sacerdotes pedófilos Puerto Rico” (always helps to know a little Spanish)…. And there I ran into a website encouraging, well, here’s a quote:

Aunque hay muchos obstáculos legales para poder procesar a los responsables del abuso, los abogados de Jeff Anderson & Associates están haciendo un llamado especial en Puerto Rico para los casos de abuso sexual cometidos por sacerdotes en la Isla, ya que este equipo de abogados ha trabajado por más de 25 años para superar estos obstáculos.  

Hey, Jeff Anderson up in Minnesota speaks Spanish, too! In fact, Avid Reader, we all ran into Anderson some time ago, when considering the curious case of Maciel, an old buddy of Benedict’s. So here is Anderson, making a special call for abuse victims in Puerto Rico to come forward, and saying his team of lawyers has more than 25 years of experience.

The real find came later, when I was invited to see a list of priests reported to have committed pedophilia, just by clicking, as you can, here: http://www.abusadoenpuertorico.com/Sacerdotes_Acusados.aspx

OK—do that, and I get the list of 14 clergy who have been accused of abuse. And one name in particular caught my eye: The Reverend Edward Santana.

Go back to the list of the four charges so wrongfully slung at the archbishop. Then put a checkmark next to number 2.

Right—some of the clergy have just one PDF file next to their name. Santana has 16. None of which are linked to an active file; I got this when clicking on each one of them:

404 - File or directory not found.

The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

Right—so what would happen if I googled “Edward Santana sacerdote Puerto Rico?” Well, I come up with not much, and so I turn to a website with, perhaps, an axe to grind. Read it, in Spanish, with the box of salt in hand…

OK, here’s the report: Edward Santana was accused in 2001 before the archbishop of Caguas, a city in the center of the island. A mother charged Santana with sexual harassment of her daughter, and the church, reportedly, balked, saying there was no eyewitness. Eventually, however, the diocese offered a deal—a certain sum of money and the removal of Santana from his position, if the claimant would drop the matter. Allegedly, the diocese didn’t come through, and the claimant went up one level, asking the papal nuncio over in Santo Domingo to intervene. Apparently he did, though not before the news gets splashed over the front pages of the papers.

Now it gets murky—Primera Hora, in an article dated 18 May 2002, states that the Archbishop of Caguas had relieved Santana from his duties, and would be sending him off for rehab. Santana could, however, say mass and hear confession.

The website labuenaventurapr.com has a different, or perhaps fuller story. In this scenario, Santana—get ready—got transferred to Arecibo, where he was given a parish and was in contact with kids. Oh, and the goat that calmed the cup (la gota que colmó la copa)? The archbishop of Arecibo named Santana an ecclesiastical judge.

Things got hotter than usual, which is to say very hot indeed, and then the day came when Santana announced he had cancer; he had to go up to gringolandia for treatment. He did, remaining—allegedly—on the payroll.

Well, the sunny skies of Florida had a rejuvenating effect on Santana, and guess what! He’s now cured, connected with the Archdiocese of Miami, and also serving as…

…yes, yet again, an ecclesiastical judge.

Guys, I could call the archdiocese of Miami, or even just look it up.

But isn’t that your job?  

The Case Against Cardinal Ratzinger

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.