Future pope stalled pedophile case

[geomancer]

More evidence of the moral bankruptcy of the Abrahamic religions. This one is from Oakland.

Richard

AP EXCLUSIVE: Future pope stalled pedophile case
AP EXCLUSIVE: Letter shows future Pope Benedict resisted defrocking molester priest

GILLIAN FLACCUS
AP News

Apr 09, 2010 13:44 EDT

The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including "the good of the universal church," according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.

The correspondence, obtained by The Associated Press, is 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.

The letter, signed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was typed in Latin and is part of years of correspondence between the Diocese of Oakland and the Vatican about the proposed defrocking of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle.

The Vatican refused to comment on the contents of the letter Friday, but a spokesman confirmed it bore Ratzinger's signature.

"The press office doesn't believe it is necessary to respond to every single document taken out of context regarding particular legal situations," the Rev. Federico Lombardi said. "It is not strange that there are single documents which have Cardinal Ratzinger's signature."

The diocese recommended removing Kiesle (KEEZ'-lee) from the priesthood in 1981, the year Ratzinger was appointed to head the Vatican office which shared responsibility for disciplining abusive priests.

The case then languished for four years at the Vatican before Ratzinger finally wrote to Oakland Bishop John Cummins. It was two more years before Kiesle was removed.

In the November 1985 letter, Ratzinger says the arguments for removing Kiesle are 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.

But 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.

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.

"It is my conviction that there would be no scandal 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.

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. At one point, a Vatican official wrote to say the file may have been lost and suggested resubmitting materials.

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, 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."

Irwin Zalkin, an attorney representing some of the victims, said he was familiar with the correspondence but wouldn't provide documents to AP.

"Cardinal Ratzinger was more concerned about the avoidance of scandal than he was about protecting children," Zalkin said in a phone interview. "That was a central theme."

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 served as associate pastor from 1972 to 1975.

Kiesle was ultimately stripped of his priestly powers in 1987, though the documents do not indicate when, how or why. They also don't indicate what role — if any — Ratzinger had in the decision.

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."

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

Kiesle 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, the now-retired bishop, told the AP during an interview at his Oakland home that he "didn't really care for" Kiesle, but he didn't recall writing to Ratzinger concerning the case.

"I wish I did write to Cardinal Ratzinger. I don't think I was that smart," Cummins, now 82, told AP.

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.

The Vatican has called the accusations "absolutely groundless" and said the facts were being misrepresented.

___

Associated Press writers Brooke Donald in Oakland, Eric Gorski in Denver, John Mone in San Diego, Raquel Maria Dillon in Los Angeles and Victor L. Simpson in Rome contributed to this report.

Source: AP News

[LenInSebastopol]

Yeah, with 95,000 priests in the world I suppose tracking the couple of dozen should have been easier.
I agree, first offense: big rock around the neck, off a cliff. I'll bet the others would have learned quick, fast and in a hurry. Of course such sick people never learn but there would have been a diminution of men behaving as animals; no, lower than animals.
Do you think this affect the moral position this pope stands for? Does it invalidate any of the moral or ethical positions the church takes? I understand that may be one of the agendas for leaning on this as heavy and often as the media does, besides making money and juicing the glands of the readers, but seriously does it effect anything? Just wondering. Especially in light of the thread "More people are killed in the name of".

[theindependenteye]

>>>Do you think this affect the moral position this pope stands for? Does it invalidate any of the moral or ethical positions the church takes?

Personally, I don't, any more than it would if the blame fell on a university, an agency, or the government.

There's the best manifestation of the ideal (e.g. "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness" or "infinite grace and redemption," whatever), and the worst. In a heavily centralized institution, where tradition and authority are sanctified, there's a potential for corruption that beggars the imagination, and it should be no surprise to anyone when monumental hypocrisy takes place.

One can argue that the Church's general view of sex, the dominance of male authority, the celibate priesthood, etc., are to blame, and I imagine there's a lot of truth to that. I've heard the counter-argument that it's due to a "sexually permissive society" that's corrupted the Church from without. Ah well, take your choice.

But overall, people in authority within a major institution are inevitably dedicated to the preservation of that institution. Ratzinger was Johnny-on-the-spot when it came to persecuting potential heretics -- cf. Matthew Fox -- and if he was dilatory in the sex-abuse cases it was undoubtedly because he was looking to the Greater Good, i.e. whatever he felt was foremost on the docket for keeping the Church healthy, wealthy and wise. That's logically how you get to be CEO, President, or Pope.

Which is just to say that the Church is not necessarily an effective preserver of its own "moral position," perhaps because, IMHO and to paraphrase a truism, an unexamined moral position is not worth shit. Generally, the Church takes about 400 years to decide when to use a semi-colon, so self-examination isn't its strong suit.

For myself, I hold that "belief" is the worst enemy of religion. To me, "religion" is (a) the set of tenets we adopt to guide our own actions and (b) what of those we share with others, finding some way to get together and confirm it & build it & evolve it. Religions generally involve a belief in fairy tales, often very beautiful fairy tales and exquisite poetry but deeply fraught with contradictions and absurdities. For me, those can be very valuable guiding metaphors without remotely "believing" in their actuality. That means that there's some room for change, not for unbridled "do what you feel like" but for continued examination and gradual evolution. When the Institution walls that off behind a architecture of eternal absolutes, eventually the earthquake will tell on it.

Just my thoughts. I don't intend to found the Church of Divine Non-belief, though I'd probably check it out if I hear of it. I'm most closely connected with the Quakers, for whom the divine is immanent and you put up your listening ear, like the people trying to detect signals from outer space; and to the neo-pagans, who are best when they're dancing. The Catholic Church, well, great art and music and many true saints of human betterment, but (Liberal Democrat though I be) a very bad argument for Big Government.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[geomancer]

Yeah, with 95,000 priests in the world I suppose tracking the couple of dozen should have been easier.
I agree, first offense: big rock around the neck, off a cliff. I'll bet the others would have learned quick, fast and in a hurry. Of course such sick people never learn but there would have been a diminution of men behaving as animals; no, lower than animals.
Do you think this affect the moral position this pope stands for? Does it invalidate any of the moral or ethical positions the church takes? I understand that may be one of the agendas for leaning on this as heavy and often as the media does, besides making money and juicing the glands of the readers, but seriously does it effect anything? Just wondering. Especially in light of the thread "More people are killed in the name of".

Your concern for the administrative problems of the world's oldest bureaucracy is touching, but the number of perverted priests is way, way more than a "couple of dozen."

The issue here is keeping a known child abuser in situations where he came in contact with children for years after his bishop wanted him defrocked. Ratzingers signature is on it.

Andrew Sullivan, a conservative Catholic blogger (who happens to be gay) has been all over this. Check out these links if you want more:

The Third Strike - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Ratzinger Knew - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Ratzinger And The Cases Of Father Teta And Father Trupia - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Ratzinger, Micro-Manager - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

He also has a thread called "How long has this been going on?" that is damming with its numerous eyewitness accounts. The link below accesses this thread.

How Long Has This Been Going On? Ctd - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

There also is another thread concerning how quickly the Episcopalian church is to get rid of problematic priests.

An Episcopal Story - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

As to what wonderful moral positions Ratzinger stands for, "no condoms for HIV prevention" has to be one of them.

Richard

(Incidentally, I suspect the reason I've been on this issue so much is that my father and grandfather were fiercely anti-clerical Irish Catholics. It's in my blood.)

[LenInSebastopol]

>>>Do you think this affect the moral position this pope stands for? Does it invalidate any of the moral or ethical positions the church takes?

Personally, I don't, any more than it would if the blame fell on a university, an agency, or the government.
There's the best manifestation of the ideal (e.g. "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness" or "infinite grace and redemption," whatever), and the worst. In a heavily centralized institution, where tradition and authority are sanctified, there's a potential for corruption that beggars the imagination, and it should be no surprise to anyone when monumental hypocrisy takes place.

We almost agree. In any institution, every institution eventually, rot begins as it is one of those natural laws of stuff that defy mankind and all good purposes and intentions. It is not hypocrisy that is the issue here but poor judgment, the inability or unwillingness to speedily redress a terrible wrong, a perversion of justice, a lack of compassion and remedy for the victims. Truly bad but I cannot see insincerity in beliefs. Of course, using the parlance of a church, unless you think the pope is a devil!

One can argue that the Church's general view of sex, the dominance of male authority, the celibate priesthood, etc., are to blame, and I imagine there's a lot of truth to that. I've heard the counter-argument that it's due to a "sexually permissive society" that's corrupted the Church from without. Ah well, take your choice.

My love for Ockham's Razor does not preclude both, but it is not the sex blind spot that drives the issue here, nor the celibate life of those that swear to abstinence. A mistake commonly viewed but not supported by those that look thoroughly into the matters. Granted, the church is fighting the "male dominance" part, thank goodness, and I think it fair for conjecture that the call for ousting this pope has that as an agenda while using this incident as a major thrust to do so.

But overall, people in authority within a major institution are inevitably dedicated to the preservation of that institution. Ratzinger was Johnny-on-the-spot when it came to persecuting potential heretics -- cf. Matthew Fox -- and if he was dilatory in the sex-abuse cases it was undoubtedly because he was looking to the Greater Good, i.e. whatever he felt was foremost on the docket for keeping the Church healthy, wealthy and wise. That's logically how you get to be CEO, President, or Pope.

Matthew Fox's posit of "radical Christianity" and the conservative cardinal would never come eye to eye and such will be so for generations; much like the fact that it takes generations to come to what many, like Fox, have presented over the years. Imagine your youngest teenage son coming home and mandating you change your house, lifestyle and mode of living as well as your economic status by next week. None would immediately say "yes". Then imagine asking "why" and his response is, "I won't tell you", how long will he live in your house until you assert your "male dominance" and say, "You are outta here"!
All deplore the speed of response in those facts identified here. I also applaud the deliberation and clarity of response regarding cases such as Fox. That is this pope's strong point. The man has an intellect that is equipped to be the one who can explain a traditional and humane position that the world hopes to erode, and expounds on defenses and positions that are the traditional church. Which is to say, obviously, he falters on throwing perverts off a cliff.

Which is just to say that the Church is not necessarily an effective preserver of its own "moral position," perhaps because, IMHO and to paraphrase a truism, an unexamined moral position is not worth shit. Generally, the Church takes about 400 years to decide when to use a semi-colon, so self-examination isn't its strong suit.

True that! I mean about the semicolon. Aside from the above "not necessarily", from your response one may infer you are looking for a perfect institution or practitioners of perfection. I doubt it, but it can be a valid conjecture, no? As stated previously, the last perfect one was hung on a cross, and if allowed to we would do it again. Sorry, none here, so I gather many would throw the baby out with...? Go ahead and bring in a 'new morality'. I've read of those that tried and it makes sense in a kinky kind of way that appeals to progressiveness. It involves killing millions via various means that suit the pleasures of ordinary men and the crowds they roam in. We know it will happen again as that is the nature of man, the animal. It's not religion, nor politics that drive him so, just what is "natural" and in the heart of each that does not really examine life and the purpose of it. As one barbarian put it, the greatest pleasure of life is to take a man's property, rape his wife and daughter in front of him and then cut his head off. That's a "new" morality too.
I would think that loving one's enemy can be to much of an evolutionary leap for many, if not most.

For myself, I hold that "belief" is the worst enemy of religion. To me, "religion" is (a) the set of tenets we adopt to guide our own actions and (b) what of those we share with others, finding some way to get together and confirm it & build it & evolve it.

You make a distinction without a difference for me.
True, religion originally meant "that which binds us together" or to "re-align", which you clarify as having some relationship with others, but I don't get your "belief" notion and its apparent antagonism with "religion". Are you indicating you can have a religion without believing 'the same as' in that relationship? Sounds like a platform for a political party.

Religions generally involve a belief in fairy tales, often very beautiful fairy tales and exquisite poetry but deeply fraught with contradictions and absurdities. For me, those can be very valuable guiding metaphors without remotely "believing" in their actuality. That means that there's some room for change, not for unbridled "do what you feel like" but for continued examination and gradual evolution. When the Institution walls that off behind a architecture of eternal absolutes, eventually the earthquake will tell on it.

Then we do agree, almost, I think! Though I would not characterize such beliefs as "fairy tales" as such is placed in the pejorative, at least to me. Or maybe I don't "get" fairy tales, but I know there big around here in Wacco Land. Those that wrote in those sacred texts did not write for the critical reasoning so many love to practice now a days, nor for the scientific approach made popular since the invention of the semicolon. Such an approach reduces what is true, right and beautiful to absurdities meant for folks that wish to dissect the beast to death to see what makes it live and then eat the carcass.
And your idea of 'room for change within' is supported from the 10 Suggestions onward. Folks use to called them Commandments but because of change-artists and questionnaires they "evolved" into about 650 "laws" by about 1 A.D.
As for institutions being walled off......we are there to reform them as that, again, is the nature of all big outfits.

Just my thoughts. I don't intend to found the Church of Divine Non-belief, though I'd probably check it out if I hear of it. I'm most closely connected with the Quakers, for whom the divine is immanent and you put up your listening ear, like the people trying to detect signals from outer space; and to the neo-pagans, who are best when they're dancing. The Catholic Church, well, great art and music and many true saints of human betterment, but (Liberal Democrat though I be) a very bad argument for Big Government.
Peace & joy--
Conrad

I don't think the Catholics Church ever indicated it was a democracy, or I didn't get the memo, so it's no surprise that they have been caught AGAIN with their collective head in the wrong place. And we do finally agree!: they are a perfect model of Big Government, so let that be a warning to all here that look to B.G. to be a solution....sorry, they are the problem!
Don't know much about the Quakers of this new age. I do recall reading about their beginnings and they did admirable things, some worked fair. like prisons, and then big government stepped in......
Some men think they're perfect, others keeping looking for perfect men....makes one want to live in a cave on a hill, eh?

[LenInSebastopol]

Your concern for the administrative problems of the world's oldest bureaucracy is touching, but the number of perverted priests is way, way more than a "couple of dozen."
The issue here is keeping a known child abuser in situations where he came in contact with children for years after his bishop wanted him defrocked. Ratzingers signature is on it.
There also is another thread concerning how quickly the Episcopalian church is to get rid of problematic priests.

An Episcopal Story - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

As to what wonderful moral positions Ratzinger stands for, "no condoms for HIV prevention" has to be one of them. Richard
(Incidentally, I suspect the reason I've been on this issue so much is that my father and grandfather were fiercely anti-clerical Irish Catholics. It's in my blood.)

I have no idea what your anti clerical stance means as derived from your grandfather and your heritage, but I find interesting your connection of morality to HIV prevention. Come to think of it, I have no idea what THAT means as well! Can one have sexual promiscuity as far as the church goes? And condoms will "cover it" so such may run rampant? Or if your spouse has HIV then use a condom? Is that what you say the church says? Sorry, to big a leap for me make.
As for the number of perverted priests, double that number..no make it ten times more plus! 300 priest, 500 priests out of 95,000 is still.....well as Stalin once said, "The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is history" and he would have known. Yes, this guy screwed up by not going after all 1,000 perverted priests with the vengeance of an anti-cleric Irish Catholic...and he didn't. Now what? More invectives or some solutions?

[WeAreLove]

Solutions? How about we start applying the law to pedophile priests and the criminal heirarchy that protects them instead of looking the other way?

Yes, there's pedophiles in other organizations too, but nowhere do they get the protections and continual access to kids that the catholic church provides.

One of the 80 pedophile priests in the Boston diocese molested 130 kids in his career, and he was protected for decades by the church.

I have no idea what your anti clerical stance means as derived from your grandfather and your heritage, but I find interesting your connection of morality to HIV prevention. Come to think of it, I have no idea what THAT means as well! Can one have sexual promiscuity as far as the church goes? And condoms will "cover it" so such may run rampant? Or if your spouse has HIV then use a condom? Is that what you say the church says? Sorry, to big a leap for me make.
As for the number of perverted priests, double that number..no make it ten times more plus! 300 priest, 500 priests out of 95,000 is still.....well as Stalin once said, "The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is history" and he would have known. Yes, this guy screwed up by not going after all 1,000 perverted priests with the vengeance of an anti-cleric Irish Catholic...and he didn't. Now what? More invectives or some solutions?

[LenInSebastopol]

Solutions? How about we start applying the law to pedophile priests and the criminal heirarchy that protects them instead of looking the other way?

Righteous! We need to bring those perverts to the hard bar of justice and not just toss them over a cliff with a big old stone as I want to do.
As far as the 'criminal hierarchy' stuff.....very difficult to actuate, don't you think? I mean I really understand the emotion and have that 'burn them to the ground' feeling as well, but to put together a package like that is all but next to impossible.

Yes, there's pedophiles in other organizations too, but nowhere do they get the protections and continual access to kids that the catholic church provides.

Why, no there are all kinds of outfits that have perverted misfits in it that protect their own. Matter of fact just about all of them do so until the jig is up, that is, as in this case. The difference could be due to two notions, one is that they are a religion which compounds the ugly due to their stance on morality, truth and all that good stuff. The second is that they are and perceive themselves as another country, another gov't, an entity outside the realms of 'man'. Tough position to negotiate with when it comes to going up the 'chain of command' in gaining access and cooperation.

One of the 80 pedophile priests in the Boston diocese molested 130 kids in his career, and he was protected for decades by the church.

Yes, and in my evil heart I know what and how to do to him what should be done....that's why there are laws...it protects the guilty from the likes of me. How about you? Want to live with such without the protection of the law?

[WeAreLove]

No, it's easy to 'actuate' a criminal hierarchy when the church simply moves pedophiles to fresh, unsuspecting victims whenever they're caught molesting kids. It's happened countless times, all over the world, including right here in Sonoma County.

Righteous! We need to bring those perverts to the hard bar of justice and not just toss them over a cliff with a big old stone as I want to do.
As far as the 'criminal hierarchy' stuff.....very difficult to actuate, don't you think? I mean I really understand the emotion and have that 'burn them to the ground' feeling as well, but to put together a package like that is all but next to impossible.



Why, no there are all kinds of outfits that have perverted misfits in it that protect their own. Matter of fact just about all of them do so until the jig is up, that is, as in this case. The difference could be due to two notions, one is that they are a religion which compounds the ugly due to their stance on morality, truth and all that good stuff. The second is that they are and perceive themselves as another country, another gov't, an entity outside the realms of 'man'. Tough position to negotiate with when it comes to going up the 'chain of command' in gaining access and cooperation.



Yes, and in my evil heart I know what and how to do to him what should be done....that's why there are laws...it protects the guilty from the likes of me. How about you? Want to live with such without the protection of the law?

[geomancer]

I have no idea what your anti clerical stance means as derived from your grandfather and your heritage, but I find interesting your connection of morality to HIV prevention. Come to think of it, I have no idea what THAT means as well! Can one have sexual promiscuity as far as the church goes? And condoms will "cover it" so such may run rampant? Or if your spouse has HIV then use a condom? Is that what you say the church says? Sorry, to big a leap for me make.

As for the number of perverted priests, double that number..no make it ten times more plus! 300 priest, 500 priests out of 95,000 is still.....well as Stalin once said, "The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is history" and he would have known. Yes, this guy screwed up by not going after all 1,000 perverted priests with the vengeance of an anti-cleric Irish Catholic...and he didn't. Now what? More invectives or some solutions?

I picked condoms and HIV because this is an issue that sets the Catholic Church apart form the consensus "Golden Rule" morality that informs Western Civilization, religious and secular alike. It's a moral issue for them, no doubt about it. Take this paragraph from Benedict aka Ratzinger's page in Wikipedia:

Pope Benedict XVI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birth control and HIV/AIDS
In 2005, the Pope listed several ways to combat the spread of HIV, including chastity, fidelity in marriage and anti-poverty efforts; he also rejected the use of condoms.[127] The alleged Vatican investigation of whether there are any cases when married persons may use condoms to protect against the spread of infections surprised many Catholics in the wake of John Paul II's consistent refusal to consider condom use in response to AIDS.[128] However, the Vatican has since stated that no such change in the Church's teaching can occur.[129] Time Magazine also reported in its 30 April 2006 edition that the Vatican's position remains what it always has been with Vatican officials "flatly dismiss[ing] reports that the Vatican is about to release a document that will condone any condom use."[129]

In March 2009, the Pope stated:
I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is. If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help, the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it. The solution must have two elements: firstly, bringing out the human dimension of sexuality, that is to say a spiritual and human renewal that would bring with it a new way of behaving towards others, and secondly, true friendship offered above all to those who are suffering, a willingness to make sacrifices and to practise self-denial, to be alongside the suffering.[130]


My beef is less with the abusing priests than it is with their enablers. A very high percentage of child abusers were themselves abused; that his how their psyches became so warped in the first place. It is a form of imprinting that is very difficult to overcome.

The short of it is: known abusers have been shuffled around because the church is so short of priests, which I believe is largely due to the requirement of celibacy. Because Catholic priests are drawn from a relatively small subset of the population, a significant percentage of them have major issues and anxiety around their own sexuality. What more natural a refuge for someone who was sexually abused as a child than to be safe in the arms of the church?

The pope should apologize and resign.

Richard

[LenInSebastopol]

I picked condoms and HIV because this is an issue that sets the Catholic Church apart form the consensus "Golden Rule" morality that informs Western Civilization, religious and secular alike. It's a moral issue for them, no doubt about it. Take this paragraph from Benedict aka Ratzinger's page in Wikipedia:
Pope Benedict XVI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is this Gold Rule morality? I don't get the reference. Your slick writing left me in the dark. Do unto others as they would do unto you? And that is ......what? a bad thing?
And wow: Wiki as The Resource for All.
If it's in Wiki it must be so!
It is clear, you want the church to change on such a matter? Not in the lifetime of our great grandchildren's children. It can't because it is wrong. How can it be more simple? Is it wrong, if you are hungry, to eat your own arm? Then why would you change that? You would not. Your Wiki's source for your above stance is clear in that to stop the monstrosity of HIV, that is killing a thousand people a day in South Africa alone, chastity is best, followed by fidelity in marriage (and the word ANTI POVERTY did not appear in that BBC reference, so how Wiki got it may be "political") so there is no better way, is there? To use a condom would violate that little thingy called TRUST between those two people who are chaste and faithful in marriage. In using that TRUST thingy, that gives both parties the freedom to have as much sex as it is a good that both cannot live without the full enjoyment of the other. And that is a bad thing? I know: it is silly to ask folks to not behave as animals and fuck in the streets with all that happening around them, but then many civilizations have struggled through that tough evolution stage. Now if I wanted Black Africans dead , as any good white supremacist could wish, I would encourage mistrust as well as the use of condoms and sexual "liberation". No, really. And I write such not simply because I am coming down off a previous post in describing racism and how ugly it is, but I would still find the same instance here.

Birth control and HIV/AIDS
In 2005, the Pope listed several ways to combat the spread of HIV, including chastity, fidelity in marriage and anti-poverty efforts; he also rejected the use of condoms.[127] The alleged Vatican investigation of whether there are any cases when married persons may use condoms to protect against the spread of infections surprised many Catholics in the wake of John Paul II's consistent refusal to consider condom use in response to AIDS.[128]
In March 2009, the Pope stated:
I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome merely with money, necessary though it is. If there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help, the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it. The solution must have two elements: firstly, bringing out the human dimension of sexuality, that is to say a spiritual and human renewal that would bring with it a new way of behaving towards others, and secondly, true friendship offered above all to those who are suffering, a willingness to make sacrifices and to practise self-denial, to be alongside the suffering.[130]

Imagine that: the pope wants sex to be special, sacred (isn't there an upcoming class posted here on Wacco about that?) and give it a "human dimension", which really cuts into the action of horny guys everywhere!
Come on guys, you know you are horn dogs and this guy is cutting into action that can be yours! We've gotten women for years to wear those stupid shoes, to wear clothes that make anyone look morons, to sell women items that are impractical if not harmful and/or unnecessary, and to kill the unborn as well as neglect their children in pursuit of us and money as well as to do what want; and now this guy wants them to stop giving it away? And practice self denial!?! Maybe he should resign!

My beef is less with the abusing priests than it is with their enablers. A very high percentage of child abusers were themselves abused; that his how their psyches became so warped in the first place. It is a form of imprinting that is very difficult to overcome.

Then you are off the mark. I like an outfit that will protect their own. That's the diff between you and I. And I do not like those that did such in this case and would allow them to live after dishing out all the misery life, poverty and ousting from their silks may give. Let them find the 'blessings' in that; the chesters are going off a cliff with a big old rock tied around their crushed skull.
As for the innocents, tears, prayer, therapy and only the tenderest of treatment to bring them back into the fold of the norm would be mandated, no matter what the cost. Those priests killed each and every child, each and every time they touched them. Death would be to good for the perpetrators of such thieves of innocence.

The short of it is: known abusers have been shuffled around because the church is so short of priests, which I believe is largely due to the requirement of celibacy. Because Catholic priests are drawn from a relatively small subset of the population, a significant percentage of them have major issues and anxiety around their own sexuality. What more natural a refuge for someone who was sexually abused as a child than to be safe in the arms of the church?
The pope should apologize and resign.
Richard

You are probably right, there's ain't no priests because of that love we have for.....well anyway, they are far and few who are called to celibacy for all their life and the church wants to grow, so the excessive bureaucracy
turned a blind eye, and then enabled them to continue. Damn. The Orthodox have the same problems but at least they are married.
Pleas don't get it mixed up, anxiety, sexuality and child abuse. This thing about children and the priest is not about sex, that is the manifestation and a terrible way of expression.
The pope will apologize and I hope delineates some responsibility but I doubt he will resign. He made a mistake, a terrible one, and that will be part of his legacy, but to resign would not undue the harm to the victims nor help anyone except your ilk, which is a minor thing.

[LenInSebastopol]

No, it's easy to 'actuate' a criminal hierarchy when the church simply moves pedophiles to fresh, unsuspecting victims whenever they're caught molesting kids. It's happened countless times, all over the world, including right here in Sonoma County.

I was recently a juror in a murder trial here in Sonoma. NOTHING is as it appears and no one, sometimes even those involved, realize how complicated things can be. Ever see that movie Roshomon? I think that's the one where the audience sees the same thing via 5 different views, including the deceased, and no one 'gets it right', or the audience doesn't know which is the truth. I would bet odds that obfuscation would out rule any corner on the issues as one worked up that chain of command. The Catholics have been practicing that since Christ was a child. I feel the burn, but doubt it will singe any court documents.

[WeAreLove]

So? That doesn't mean they're free to break the law, or that they shouldn't be prosecuted. Like murder, it's against the law to have sex with children, and it's against the law not to report it if you're aware that someone else is having sex with children.

What don't you understand about that?

I was recently a juror in a murder trial here in Sonoma. NOTHING is as it appears and no one, sometimes even those involved, realize how complicated things can be. Ever see that movie Roshomon? I think that's the one where the audience sees the same thing via 5 different views, including the deceased, and no one 'gets it right', or the audience doesn't know which is the truth. I would bet odds that obfuscation would out rule any corner on the issues as one worked up that chain of command. The Catholics have been practicing that since Christ was a child. I feel the burn, but doubt it will singe any court documents.

[LenInSebastopol]

You are right. In both instances. I do understand it.
Furthermore, in California, it is against the law to be a clergyman and not report such. So they can be doubled banged.
I got to know an investigator who claimed he worked the case of the local bishop and Latin American "priest" that was sexing his congregation prior to fleeing the country (claimed the warrant is still active). I asked him the same type questions but he could not give me a sound answer! Told me it was at the DA level or higher as to why everybody wasn't indicted. Sad story. I know it.
At the risk of sounding glib, it's against the law to smoke dope, drive while phoning, and though it is not a minor thing here, some are using discretion more than righteousness. Power is a terrible thing.

So? That doesn't mean they're free to break the law, or that they shouldn't be prosecuted. Like murder, it's against the law to have sex with children, and it's against the law not to report it if you're aware that someone else is having sex with children. What don't you understand about that?