Local Control
Almost immediately after this brilliant analysis was published the news wires started buzzing with the story of a priest from the Oakland Diocese. Joe Garofoli summarizes the story in Saturday's SF Comical:
In 1981, after serving three years of probation for the lewd conduct charges, Kiesle requested that he be laicized - removed from the priesthood. The Diocese of Oakland supported his request to the Vatican, which must approve defrocking.
That was also the year that Ratzinger was appointed to head the Vatican department responsible for disciplining priests.
Cummins warned the Vatican that it would be a bigger scandal to allow Kiesle to remain in the priesthood than to defrock him. But there was no resolution for years, according to documents obtained by the Associated Press, despite several attempts by the diocese to follow up on the case.
4 years for response
Meanwhile, in 1985 Kiesle began volunteering - without the blessing of the diocese - as a youth minister at St. Joseph's Church in Pinole, according to news reports.
It took four years for Ratzinger to respond in writing to Cummins. In 1985, Ratzinger wrote that he considered "this case to be of grave significance," but worried about the reaction.
In a letter written in Latin, he asked Cummins "to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner," according to a letter obtained by the Associated Press.
"It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time," Ratzinger wrote.
Noting Kiesle's "young age," 38 at the time, Ratzinger instead encouraged Cummins to provide Kiesle "with as much paternal care as possible." A Vatican lawyer told the Associated Press that paternal care was a way of telling the bishop he was responsible for keeping Kiesle out of trouble.
So this guy was still a priest and could go anywhere in the country and show his priest credentials and volunteer to work with youth - the reader will note that Pinole is near Oakland but not in the same diocese. And if nobody checked with Oakland it would all look O.K.
Because the Vatican, in the person of Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict, figured that if it just sat on the whole thing the guy would die or come to Jesus of something and no one would have to admit that they were wrong.
So much for local control.
We are, however, assured that the Cardinal acted much more quickly in these matters that had been customary in the past. If this is quick one wonders what slow looks like.
"So this guy was still a priest and could go anywhere in the country and show his priest credentials and volunteer to work with youth - the reader will note that Pinole is near Oakland but not in the same diocese. And if nobody checked with Oakland it would all look O.K.
Because the Vatican, in the person of Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict, figured that if it just sat on the whole thing the guy would die or come to Jesus of something and no one would have to admit that they were wrong.
So much for local control."
This is completely wrong I am afraid that being how you are viewing it.
Most Priests don't have a Priest badege they can show. Once he is barred from Public Ministry he cannot just to go to another Diocese and be a Priest in good standing. If he is a Diocesean Priest he is under the jurisdiction of that Bishop. A Bishop cannot just overturn another Bishop's Barring from public ministry unless he appeals it. In fact the Priest has to be released from that Bishop jurisdiction
So no he can't just set up shop somewhere else
The quotes have been taken out context
First a little clarity on what is going on here
Until 2001 the Congregation only dealt with Sex Abuse cases that involved the Confessional
The latest supposed Controversal involved a Priest that wanted a dispensation (called some times Laicization or at time defrocking which is an unfortunate term for many reasons.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Fatih had jurisdiction over this matter because it handled these dispensations. A person can leave the Priesthood on his on but that does not mean his obligation of celibacy is relieved. The real consequence of people asking for dispensations (which this Priest did) and the reason they are asking it is to marry (which after he got it at the age of 40) which this guy did. I am not sure why the Pope should be making a exception for a child abuser to move to the front of the line and so as a Lay person can marry. Hopefully he had no kids. I am not sure of that. Again this is being framed as punshiment which is strange since the abusing priest was asking for it.
That is the scandal that Benedict is talking about. That being Priests who left the Priesthood and then in short years just got married. Pope John Paul the II made a iron clad rule that unless the PRiest that had left the active Priesthood or had been barred from public ministry could not have a dispensation untill the age of 40. That is the reference to His "young age"
Again a Priest can barred from active Ministry (which happened here and is similar to a Protestant defrocking" however he is still under the obligation of celibacy until released. He was realesed from it at the age of 40 which was the practice and I believe still is the practice today.
In the end the techincal moving of someone under Canon Law from the Cleric State to the Lay State is usually the last offical step and in reality is largely symbolic except they can marry
Reply to this