U.S. Bishops Quietly Reinstate Accused Priests

[spike]

While the Roman Catholic sexual abuse scandal unfolds in Europe, the Catholic Church in the U.S. is under renewed scrutiny.

In the wake of its own scandal almost a decade ago, the U.S. church says it has reformed its policies for handling sexual abuse allegations and will remove from ministry every priest who is credibly accused of abuse.

But some of those priests are now being quietly reinstated.

One Case That Settled

Juan Rocha was 12 years old when he says he was molested by his parish priest, the Rev. Eric Swearingen. He eventually brought his complaints to the bishop of Fresno, Calif., John Steinbock. When Steinbock said he didn't find the allegations credible, Rocha sued the priest and the diocese in civil court.

In 2006, the jury found 9 to 3 that Swearingen had abused Rocha. But it could not decide whether the diocese knew about it. Rather than go through a new trial, the two sides settled.

At the time, Steinbock said he thought the jury got it wrong, and that while the Catholic Church should protect children, "doing this cannot be done in such a manner as to punish innocent priests."

"Bishop Steinbock continues Swearingen in ministry to this day, choosing to believe the priest is innocent, choosing to protect the priest, and choosing to disregard entirely the judicial finding by a jury that found he had committed the crime of sexual abuse against Juan," says Rocha's attorney, Jeffrey Anderson.

Today, Swearingen serves as priest at Holy Spirit parish in Fresno, where he also oversees the youth ministry. Swearingen did not return phone calls, and Steinbock declined requests for an interview.

Returning Priests Back To Ministry

Swearingen's case is not an isolated one, says Anne Barrett Doyle, who works with the watchdog group BishopAccountability.org. She says that recently, bishops have started quietly returning to ministry priests who previously have been accused of abuse.

"I think they feel that the crisis has died down in the public mind," she says. "Therefore, they have some confidence that if they go ahead and reinstate these priests, that they'll get very little backlash."

Doyle and others have identified about a dozen clergy who have been accused, arrested or sued for abuse and returned to ministry. She says the process for investigating priests is secret, and often the diocese says nothing about the charges against a priest when it returns him to ministry.

Much more here
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125420225

 

[Professur]

There's holes in that story big enough to run a truck through. One paragraph says he took it to civil court. The next says they found him guilty of a crime. Last time I checked, civil court has nothing to do with guilt, or innocence of crime. The priest was never charged in criminal court, where evidence, not hurt feelings are the measure of the day. Civil court is about money. If a crime was committed, why were there no charges filed in criminal court?

I expect little from NPR, but this is scraping the bottom even for them.

 

[valkyrie]

NPR is a pretty decent, unbiased news organization.

That aside, I did a little bit of digging and found the following...
http://reallibertymedia.com/content/flashback-more-controversy-surrounds-father-eric-swearingen

http://www.bishopaccountability.org/assign/Swearingen_Eric.htm

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=4873029

It's not being reported only by NPR.

Since the incident happened about 20 years ago, and California has a statute of limitations on sexual abuse of 6 years, the only recourse was Civil Court. The jurors found the defendant, Eric Swearingen, guilty of the crime he was accused of.

Although I don't see other accusations against Eric Swearingen this goes well beyond one priest and one incident. This is, and has been, a problem.

 

[Professur]

This is, and has been, a problem.

Indeed .. but it's amazing in my view how well money soothes the scars of time. And I repeat ... a civil court can't find anyone guilty of a crime. Culpable, but never guilty. And Culpable in civil court has nothing like the burden of evidence of a criminal court. The civil defendant has nothing like the rights and protections accorded an accused.

 

[valkyrie]

Indeed .. but it's amazing in my view how well money soothes the scars of time. And I repeat ... a civil court can't find anyone guilty of a crime. Culpable, but never guilty. And Culpable in civil court has nothing like the burden of evidence of a criminal court. The civil defendant has nothing like the rights and protections accorded an accused.

Culpable, true.
Money doesn't soothe the scars of time. Money awarded in a civil suit only punishes those found "culpable". Therapists are not free. Why should the victim not be compensated if the offending party is found to have inflicted serious injury (mentally or physically) to the victim?

I would not dismiss the offense because the victim received money from the law suit. It does not lessen what was done to a 12 year old boy by an adult in a trusting, authoritarian position.

 

[Professur]

Culpable, true.
Money doesn't soothe the scars of time. Money awarded in a civil suit only punishes those found "culpable". Therapists are not free. Why should the victim not be compensated if the offending party is found to have inflicted serious injury (mentally or physically) to the victim?

I would not dismiss the offense because the victim received money from the law suit. It does not lessen what was done to a 12 year old boy by an adult in a trusting, authoritarian position.

I wouldn't dream of it ... if a word of it is true.

 

[spike]

The AP's story on Joseph Ratzinger's direct involvement in delaying for six years the defrocking of a priest who had confessed to tying up and raping minors ends any doubt that the future Pope is as implicated in the sex abuse crisis as much as any other official in the church.

The facts are as clear as they are damning. From the documents, the priest fits exactly the model of arrested development I sketched out here. He seems to have been pressured by a bossy mother to become a priest, and was interested only in hanging out with children around the ages of 11 to 13 (the age of the boys he raped). He had no genuine impulse to ordination, but the church was so desperate for priests he was acceptable.

When confronted with the charges, the priest pleaded no contest to tying up and raping two pre-teen boys in 1978 in the rectory of Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Union City. There were, apparently, several more victims. There was no dispute as to his guilt. The priest, Stephen Kiesle, personally requested he be defrocked. His legacy is horrifying:

Kiesle, now 63 and recently released from prison, lives in the Rossmoor senior community in Walnut Creek and wears a Global Positioning System anklet. He is on parole for a different sex crime against a child. Numerous accusers have said he abused them as children at Our Lady of the Rosary, Santa Paula (now Our Lady of Guadalupe) in Fremont and Saint Joseph in Pinole, where he served in the mid-1970s, then returned in 1985 to volunteer as a youth minister.

Yes, this rapist was subsequently allowed back into the parish where he tied up and raped children seven years later as a volunteer youth minister. Even after his eventual defrocking, in 1987, he continued to work with children at the parish for another year.

Whose fault was this? In this case, it is absolutely clear that his remaining a priest was entirely the fault of the Vatican, and the person directly responsible for the delay in defrocking him was Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Kiesle himself requested he be defrocked. The local bishop desperately wanted him to be defrocked and petitioned Raztinger first in 1981 that it happen expeditiously.

More
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/the-third-strike.html

 

[valkyrie]

That is quite damning for Ratzinger. I can see where he would want to protect The Church at all costs, but to allow the victimization of children at the hands of a church authority figure goes beyond reasonable protection.
Sad.

 

[Gato_Solo]

That is quite damning for Ratzinger. I can see where he would want to protect The Church at all costs, but to allow the victimization of children at the hands of a church authority figure goes beyond reasonable protection.
Sad.

Okay. Lets say that the church starts to break their own rules of confession and turns in those pedophile priests. Where would that leave the rest of those who confess? Not that I am a fan of the Catholic church, but that is the can of worms society is trying to open.

 

[Gotholic]

Okay. Lets say that the church starts to break their own rules of confession and turns in those pedophile priests. Where would that leave the rest of those who confess? Not that I am a fan of the Catholic church, but that is the can of worms society is trying to open.

Most of the scandal, I believe, is the discovery of priests abusing children outside of the confessional. I have never heard of a priest being accused of abuse because he revealed it during the sacrament.

Priests should not be turned over to the authorities if it was discovered through the confessional (often times, I would presume, they can confess anonymously anyways). Just like if you were to confess to a murder, they cannot turn you over. Priests are bound not say anything no matter what you confess if it was said through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. What the problem that has been going on is of superiors not doing anything when it was found out by other means.

On a side note, most cases of abuse do not even involve "pedophilia" which is a preference of prepubescent children. Most cases are of pubescent or post-pubescent children. Thus, most priests who are guilty of committing acts of "hebephilia" or "ephebophilia". However, just because they have committed those acts of any of the said three terms does not mean they fit under those categories unless they have a preference to them.

The media just likes to give a blanket label and call all offending priests "pedophiles" to put them under the worse light. Of course, abusing children of any age is evil, but the degree of evil can be lesser or greater.

 

[spike]

What the problem that has been going on is of superiors not doing anything when it was found out by other means.

Especially when the superior is now the Pope.

On a side note, most cases of abuse do not even involve "pedophilia" which is a preference of prepubescent children. Most cases are of pubescent or post-pubescent children. Thus, most priests who are guilty of committing acts of "hebephilia" or "ephebophilia". However, just because they have committed those acts of any of the said three terms does not mean they fit under those categories unless they have a preference to them.

Pedophila is often thought of as "sex with children" or "sexual attraction to children". I don't think nitpicking terminology is very helpful. It's all horrific.

What would be interesting is to find out what policies of the church attract so many of these people in the first place and taking major steps to make sure these actions aren't covered up in the future.

 

[Gotholic]

Especially when the superior is now the Pope.

Actually, the pope was not involved in those accusations but I will further address this later as I have to retire early tonight.

Pedophila is often thought of as "sex with children" or "sexual attraction to children". I don't think nitpicking terminology is very helpful. It's all horrific.

What would be interesting is to find out what policies of the church attract so many of these people in the first place and taking major steps to make sure these actions aren't covered up in the future.

Those are all loose definitions collected from Google. The accurate definition is a sexual preference of prepubescent children. The moment one gives a lose definition of "sexual attraction to children" then it just becomes subjective. What constitutes a child? Up until what age? Which state? Which country? Which culture?

Did you know that the age of sexual consent varies between the ages of 16 and 18 throughout all the 50 states of the union? In Canada it is 14, Greece it is 12, Iran it is 9. Let us call a spade a spade. Sticking with the correct definition is best.

 

[spike]

Actually, the pope was not involved in those accusations but I will further address this later as I have to retire early tonight.

See post #7 above.

Those are all loose definitions collected from Google. The accurate definition is a sexual preference of prepubescent children. The moment one gives a lose definition of "sexual attraction to children" then it just becomes subjective. What constitutes a child? Up until what age? Which state? Which country? Which culture?

Seems simple to go with the law regarding sex with minors where the priest is located.

 

[Gotholic]

See post #7 above.

An accusation without evidence. But I will address it later.

Seems simple to go with the law regarding sex with minors where the priest is located.

For crimes, yes.

 

[spike]

An accusation without evidence.

A signed letter is evidence.

This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner.

It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time.

In the meantime your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible and in addition to explain to same the rationale of this court, which is accustomed to proceed keeping the common good especially before its eyes.

This is signed by Ratzinger himself.

For crimes, yes.

Yes, that's we're talking about crimes against children by priests.

 

[Gotholic]

A signed letter is evidence.

This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner.

It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time.

In the meantime your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible and in addition to explain to same the rationale of this court, which is accustomed to proceed keeping the common good especially before its eyes.

This is signed by Ratzinger himself.

Context. Here you go:

Law professor John Coverdale wrote this letter to the New York Times. It has not been published.

Like many other people, I have felt in recent weeks that some news outlets have unfairly targeted Pope Benedict XVI in connection with sexual abuse by priests.

In part this is a question of emphasis, with daily coverage of what may or may not have been minor mistakes in judgment decades ago and almost no attention to the major efforts Pope Benedict has made to remedy what is undeniably a horrible situation.

With some frequency, however, I have observed what strikes me as deliberate distortion of the facts in order to put Pope Benedict in a bad light. I would like to call your attention to what seems to me a clear example of this sort of partisan journalism: Laurie Goodstein and Michael Luo’s article “Pope Put Off Move to Punish Abusive Priest” published on the front page of the New York Times on April 10, 2010. The story is so wrong that it is hard to believe it is not animated by the anti-Catholic animus that the New York Times and other media outlets deny harboring.

Canonical procedure punishes priests who have violated Church law in serious ways by “suspending” them from exercising their ministry. This is sometimes referred to as “defrocking.” (According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary to “defrock” is to deprive of the right to exercise the functions of an office. )

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. It is something a priest who has already been punished by being suspended might well desire, as do some priests who have committed no crime and who have not been suspended..

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 incorrectly says. He had been defrocked years earlier when he was suspended from the ministry. All of this is clear without reference to outside sources to anyone who knows something about Church procedure and reads the article with sufficient care. It is anything but clear, however, to a normal reader.

My complaint here is not that the article misuses the word “defrock” but rather that by so doing it strongly suggests to readers that Cardinal Ratzinger delayed the priest’s removal from the ministry. Delaying laicization had nothing to do with allowing him to continue exercising the ministry, from which he had already been suspended.

Not only does the article fail to make these distinctions, it positively misstate the facts. Its title is “Pope Put off Move to Punish Abusive Priest.” [italics added] It describes Cardinal Ratzinger’s decision as involving whether the abusive priest “should be forced from the priesthood” [italics added]. Even a moderately careful journalist would have to notice that all of this is incompatible with the fact (reported in the second paragraph of the article) that the priest himself had asked for what Cardinal Ratziner delayed.

Had the facts been reported accurately, the article would have said that the priest was promptly punished by being removed from the ministry for his crimes, but that when he asked to be reduced to the lay state, which would have given him the right to marry within the Church, Cardinal Ratzinger delayed granting the petition. That, of course, would hardly have merited front page treatment, much less a headline accusing the Pope of “Putt[ing] off Move to Punish Abusive Priest.”

The second half of the article reports that the priest later worked as a volunteer in the youth ministry of his former parish. This is obviously regrettable and should not have happened, but he was not acting as a priest (youth ministers are laymen, not priests).

A careful reader who was not misled by the inaccuracies in the first part of the article would, of course, realize that his volunteering as a youth minister had no factual or legal connection with Cardinal Ratzinger’s delaying the grant of laicization. The article does not say in so many words that it did, but an average reader might well conclude that there was some connection when he is told that “while the bishop was pressing Cardinal Ratzinger to defrock Mr. Kiesle, the priest began volunteering in the youth ministry of one of his former parishes.”

Any one of these errors might be due to carelessness, but their cumulative effect, coupled with the decision to make this front page news accompanied by a two column photo of Cardinal Raztinger’s signature, strongly suggests to me that something worse than carelessness is involved. I urge you to look into whether some major news outlets have indeed been engaged in a campaign to vilify the Pope and into whether their desire to do so has caused them to slip below minimum standards of professional journalism.

John Coverdale is Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law

Yes, that's we're talking about crimes against children by priests.

Which does not de facto make them pedophiles.

 

[spike]

Sorry Goth.

This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner.

The word "removal" is right there and trying to read this as Ratzinger being reluctant to let the man marry isn't working at all.

Also...source?

Also I noticed he's making claims without evidence. I thought you wouldn't like that.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

The newspaper, El Diaro de Chile, published an article last week by Spanish psychologist Jose Maria Amenos Vidal titled, “Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and the scientific evidence that supports the relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.” The author asserts that the cardinal was correct in affirming such a link during his visit to Chile.
Since 1984, Vidal has been a professor of Philosophy and Educational Science at the Central University of Barcelona, Spain, where he is also Director of Seminars in the Departments of General and Social Psychology.

From my own experience I would say that there is some correlation to some extent between these two behaviors. I can't say how many times I've seen these behaviors intertwined in some form or combination in individuals. I'd also note that these two behaviors or events are overly represented percentage wise in serial killer/rapist circles IMHO.

I agree though, we don't need Pedos or other deviants wearing the cloth. They're generally unfixable.

Do not fuck with the Jesus.
​

 

[Gotholic]

Sorry Goth.



The word "removal" is right there and trying to read this as Ratzinger being reluctant to let the man marry isn't working at all.

Also...source?

Also I noticed he's making claims without evidence. I thought you wouldn't like that.

Sorry, spike, but the priest was defrocked before he requested to be laicized which is what the letter is about. To be laicized is to be removed from his clerical character. The letter from Prof John Coverdale which I showed you addressed the article from the New York Times from which your article you quoted came from.

He could get married if he were laicized, however, that does not necessarily mean that was his intention as you assume.

The pope did not delay the abusive priest from being defrocked. Look it up. The priest had no more authority before he requested to be laicized.

 

[2minkey]

whatever. the institution still ignored and/or hid a pretty significant number of kiddie rapists. but, then, what can one expect from the same institution that grabbed its ankles for the third reich?