MISDIRECTION AND LIES PAVE WAY FOR LAWSUIT

The New York Times has provided the paper trail for the Father Stephen Kiesle laicization case on its website. It shows a stream of letters back and forth from Kiesle's diocese in Oakland, California and the Vatican. The letters come from priests, a chancellor and his bishop. They are trying to make the case for laicization of Father Kiesle, following the formula laid out in canon law for the process.

Canons 290-293 are the applicable codes. Canon 290; Section 3, is the most germane. Click on the link below for further reading about this section and how it is applied:

LOSS OF THE CLERICAL STATE

Can. 290 Sacred ordination once validly received never becomes invalid. A cleric, however, loses the clerical state:

1° by a judgement of a court or an administrative decree, declaring the ordination invalid;

2° by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed;

3° by a rescript of the Apostolic See; this rescript, however, is granted to deacons only for grave reasons and to priests only for the gravest of reasons.

Can. 291 Apart from the cases mentioned in can. 290, n. 1, the loss of the clerical state does not carry with it a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which is granted solely by the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 292 A cleric who loses the clerical state in accordance with the law, loses thereby the rights that are proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of order, without prejudice to can. 976. He is automatically deprived of all offices and roles and of any delegated power.

Can. 293 A cleric who has lost the clerical state cannot be enrolled as a cleric again save by rescript of the Apostolic See.

A discussion on this can be found in The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law written by John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green and published by the Paulist Press.

I'm not a canon lawyer and have no expertise in this area but I'm trying to at least fill in a bit of information that the mainstream press seems incapable of doing themselves. The attorney that has brought forth the above mentioned "evidence" that was published by the Times is trying to confuse the subject. He is trying to make the case that somehow the Pope, when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, helped to protect a child abuser or, at the very least, did nothing to protect the Church and it youngest members from him. However, the communication between the CDF and those in California was only tangentially about child abuse; its real object was the laicization of Father Kiesle.

The local bishop had the responsibility concerning child abuse and removing Kiesle from active ministry or access to children. That was his responsibility and one that, according to the letter from Maurine Behrend dated May 11, 1988, he did not successfully uphold. Keeping Kiesle apart from the kids had nothing to do with laicization. In fact, laicization would have removed him from all Church authority and made it impossible for the Church to exercise the control that the abused, and their attorney Mr. Anderson, demand that the Church exercise.

Laicization has to be conducted under Canon Law. This is a function of the Church and thus the only controlling authority is the Church. One could make a comparison to secular law in that the only body qualified to pass judgement on the guilt or innocence of an American citizen regarding American law is an American court. To have an Italian court pass judgement on American law or to hold American law to the standard of Italian jurisprudence would be nonsensical and unjust.

Yet this is precisely what the Times and lawyer Anderson would have us do. They're trying to conflate American child abuse laws with Canon Law even though the two have nothing to do with each other in an attempt to convict the Pope and through him the entire Church of a crime they did not commit.

If there is any guilt in this case that falls under the authority of the American legal system it lies with the Bishop and Priests of the Diocese of Oakland. If the courts can prove that any member of the diocese knowingly helped Father Kiesle avoid arrest or trial for any illegal activities then as American citizens they can and should be brought before the court. I would have to say that since the letter from Ms. Behrend indicates that Father Kiesle had returned to duty, with a youth ministry no less, somebody, somewhere in the Diocese of Oakland made a huge mistake or was complicit in covering the abuse up and should be held accountable. Whether their mistake rises to a prosecutable level I have no idea. That's for the courts to decide and that's what they're for.

In the end the attempt to drag the Pope into this may succeed, at least in the eyes of the public. Attorney Anderson is trying to sue the Vatican to further line his pockets and I suspect that this misdirected accusation is part of an effort to poison the well against the Church. He is trying the Church in the court of public opinion to lay the groundwork for his hoped for upcoming lawsuit. Sadly, because of their own personal agenda of hate, the New York Times and a large segment of the American media are more than happy to help Anderson in any way they can.

For further reading and links about these vicious attacks and calumnious statements against Holy Mother Church hop on over to my buddy Ioannes' website here and here. I'm thinking maybe the two of us should start the "Pissed Off Catholic Bloggers Association".