BishopAccountability.org
	Media Should Get Facts Straight on Actions Taken by the Church By Robert Guglielmone Post and Courier May 4, 2010 http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/may/02/02bishop/ In his recent letter to all priests, Cardinal Claudio Hummes, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, said, "It is true that, albeit proportionately small in number, some priests have committed horrible and most serious crimes of sexual abuse upon minors, deeds that we must condemn and rebuke in an absolute and uncompromising manner. Those individuals must answer for their actions before God and before tribunals, including the civil courts. Nevertheless, we also pray that they might achieve spiritual conversion and receive pardon from God. The Church, for her part, is determined neither to hide nor to minimize such crimes. Above all, we are on the side of the victims and want to support their recovery and their offended rights. On the other hand, it is absolutely unacceptable to use the crimes of the few in order to sully the entire ecclesial body of priests. Those who do so commit a profound injustice." As Bishop of Charleston, I have monitored the scandalous media reports on child sexual abuse and the alleged mismanagement of the situation by the Church's hierarchy. There is no question that bad decisions have been made in every sector of the Church and on just about every level. While not excusing our very tragic history, I am appalled by the deliberate falsehoods dished out to the public by some in the media. I am particularly disappointed that The Post and Courier provided Maureen Dowd, a New York Times columnist, a platform to champion her hostile personal agenda against the Church. Her op-ed published on April 20, was a clear manifestation of jaundiced journalism where facts are not sacrosanct. It is necessary to set the record straight. In Stephen Kiesle's case, about which Dowd and The Times have chastised the Church and Pope Benedict XVI, records indicate that following the allegation of child sexual abuse in 1978 the Oakland diocese placed Kiesle on administrative leave. He was subsequently arrested and convicted that same year on a misdemeanor charge of lewd conduct, for which he was sentenced to three years probation. Three years later, he requested to leave the priesthood and that was the basis of the request sent by the Most Rev. John Cummins, bishop of the Diocese of Oakland, to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Ratzinger's letter to Bishop Cummins was not a response to the complaints of pedophilia. The Congregation did not have jurisdiction to deal with priests accused of sexual abuse until 2001. Bishop Cummins did not seek to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct, rather, Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. Therefore, the case before the cardinal was a request for laicization by a young priest -- Kiesle. In the ongoing saga, some journalists unfairly misinform readers in ignorance of Church procedure and the meaning of some priestly terms. To enlighten misguided reporters and commentators, Professor John Coverdale, a Seton Hall professor who specializes in the interplay between law and Catholic social thought, wrote a rejoinder to what he described as "partisan journalism" by The Times' Laurie Goodstein and Michael Luo in their article "Pope Put Off Move to Punish Abusive Priest." Coverdale makes it clear that "a priest who has been suspended may request that he be released from his vows of celibacy and other obligations as a priest. If granted, this petition to be 'laicized' would leave the former priest free to marry. Laicization (which is altogether different from defrocking and which may apply to a priest who has committed no crime but simply wishes to leave the priesthood) is not further punishment. ... "The priest who is the subject of the article had already been punished by being suspended long before his case reached Rome. He asked to be laicized. Cardinal Ratzinger delayed his laicization, not his 'defrocking' as the article (and Maureen Dowd's) incorrectly states. He had been defrocked years earlier when he was suspended from the ministry." Though Ratzinger signed a letter deferring a decision on the laicization of Kiesle, his hesitation did not mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry. Bishop Cummins suspended the priest and placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered. There is no record to show that Kiesle abused children again before he was laicized in 1987. The next complaints against him occurred in 2002, 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood. It is true that in 1985 he was discovered volunteering in a church, but not as a priest. When the bishop became aware of this, he was removed from that volunteer position. Allow me to echo a couple of questions from a notable religion journalist: Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been laicized in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children. Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation -- before the case reached Rome. So this was not a question of cover-up or poor Vatican oversight or failure to discipline a priest. Kiesle merely asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican wanted to consider the request carefully. When a priest is laicized, he returns to a lay state and is no longer under the control of the Church. Who is responsible for his actions after laicization? Ratzinger only requested more time to consider the request for laicization. In two years, he was laicized. But it took the civil authorities nine years to investigate, prosecute and finally convict the priest. Who is truly at fault? There is no evidence of any cover-up in this case or any other adjudicated by Pope Benedict XVI. I urge members of the media to get their facts right in the frenzied discourse on child sexual abuse, which has become a hydra-headed monster in our society. As was recently seen in Malta, Pope Benedict is deeply moved by the stories told by victims and has expressed his shame and sorrow, assuring them that the Church will continue to do all in its power to investigate allegations, to bring to justice those responsible for abuse and to implement effective measures designed to safeguard young people in the future. No one else has done as much as Pope Benedict XVI, and by extension, the Catholic Church, to provide a safer environment for our children. Today, the Catholic Church -- its schools, hospitals and organizations are the safest environments for children in today's world bedeviled by sexual predators. The records are there for everyone to see. The Most Rev. Robert E. Guglielmone is bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston. A version of this essay was previously posted on the diocese's website.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.