AP is reporting that then Cardinal Ratzinger stalled on ‘defrockingt Rev. Stephen Kiesle.
A signed letter from Cardinal Ratzinger in 1985 delayed granting the 38 year olds request for laicization. It does not seem from the article that the Diocese had imposed removal from the clerical state as a penalty. The then priest had been arrested and put on probabtion. The article says the priest was serving as a volunteer youth minister in a parish. That he in fact served in that role until finally a lay person directly confronted the bishop about it. The diocese seems to have put forward the priests request for laicization in 1981 when the probation neared the end. The priest was laicized in 1987, which is not very long after the 1985 letter.
My observations: There is a significant difference between a case where after a trial a priest is removed from the clerical state (a penalty imposed) and a case where a young priest seeks to be laicized (a privalege granted sometimes). We would not say that someone requesting laicization was going to be defrocked by Rome.
It is unclear why the local diocese allowed a person on probabtion and apparently out of priestly ministry to serve as a youth leader.
There is no right in the Latin Church for a priest to have an assignment. So a delay in reducing him to the lay state does not in itself allow a priest to continue to function as a priest.
Conclusion: It seems the AP is not concerned with what the local diocese did to prevent the priest from serving in a capactity that brought him in contact with minors. Also they confuse ‘defrocking’ with reducing to the lay state.
April 10, 2010 at 9:10 pm |
Thank goodness for the lay person that brought her concerns to the diocese regarding him volunteering with the Youth Group.
As much as I have hated the fact that the Dallas Charter happened especially when the Bishops had the authority, canon law to back them up, to do what was necessary (remove from clerical state), I see now it is necessary because this is serious and it needs to be dealt with consistently and forcefully.
This is further proof that AP and media in general are not necessarily concerned with the welfare of children, but bringing to trial a case against the Pope via the media. Or can we say, when those that don’t feel they have strong evidence (against the pope) will result to swaying the opinions of the people and misinforming them.
If they were really concerned about the victims and children now, they would bring to light all the horrible things that happened against children/youth that was promoted even in California.