This blog is Faithful to the Magisterium, the "teaching authority of the Catholic Church", and I am, as a Catholic, firmly supportive of our shepherd, Pope Benedict XVI.
There has been a smear campaign in the media this Easter season, to try to connect the Pope with some priests that were abusers in the past.
Not to say that those people are in any way excused or should not be brought to justice. I am totally behind the prosecution and punishment of anyone who hurts an innocent child, or anyone for that matter. There has to be system in place to ensure the safety of innocence.
That being said, there seems to be a groundswell of bitterness in the media lately.
The Church has been poked and prodded repeatedly, and I suppose that is what we expect.
Christ said that the Church would be persecuted, as He was persecuted.
I just thought that I would clear up a few misconceptions with this post that I found on Creative Minority Report: The Associated Press Is Lying...
Most of you have heard the news that the Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger) delayed in defrocking a pedophile priest in California in 1985. The Associated Press, and the rest of the media bandwagon, have heralded this report as 'the smoking gun.' Only, one problem. It's a lie.
To portray this incident and the letter as a smoking gun is a willful misrepresentation of the truth. Want to know why I say that? I don't need to tell you because Phil Lawler has done the job already.
I urge you to read the entire piece and to thank Mr. Lawler for this tremendous workNow the key questions:
• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked 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 ever reached Rome.
Thanks to Patrick Archbold and Phil Lawler.