Priest laicized by Vatican for supporting women's ordination

[MonkeyMomma]

http://ncronline.org/news/people/marykn ... eois-order

Roy Bourgeois, a longtime peace activist and priest who had come under scrutiny for his support of women's ordination, has been dismissed from the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers, which he served for 45 years, according to the congregation.

The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made the dismissal in October, according to a news release issued Monday afternoon by the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers.

Dominican Fr. Tom Doyle, a canon lawyer acting on Bourgeois' behalf, told NCR he was not aware of the move.

Doyle said he and Bourgeois met with Maryknoll's superior general, Fr. Edward Dougherty, in June, and the issue of dismissal had not been discussed.

"The idea then was that things would continue and they would not dismiss Roy and they would continue to dialogue," Doyle said. "And then this just happened, unilaterally. [bourgeois] had no idea."

[Hane]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand have any of the convicted pedophile priests been laicized? I think not. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Anxious Girl]

Keep on digging your own grave, Vatican City. People are going to leave the Church in droves from stories like this, not allowing people who identify themselves as LGBT, and covering up various priests' sex scandals. Keep. On. Digging.

It. You'll definitley get more members by being conservative asshats! Opius Diei is sure to help your cause, too! :twisted:

[MonkeyMomma]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand have any of the convicted pedophile priests been laicized? I think not. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

No, you're absolutely, 100% correct. If he had hid pedophiles like Law did instead of standing for equality, he'd have a post as a cardinal by now.

[Anxious Girl]

That's the sad part. :cry:

[Arete]

The Vatican has had a long time warning to priests that they will be defrocked for ordaining women, which is why so few are willing to actually do it. He is being used as an example to keep everyone in line. Can't keep the pedophiles in line, but this, now this is important.

[notablesquid]

No, you're absolutely, 100% correct. If he had hid pedophiles like Law did instead of standing for equality, he'd have a post as a cardinal by now.

I work at a Jesuit school (though I am not now nor have I ever been Catholic.) When some of the revolting news was coming out a few years ago about the decades of abuse by one priest in Alaska, I asked a couple of the Jesuits I know why the rapist was still a Jesuit and was told that because he was so old, it was better to keep him in the ranks and have him stashed at their retirement facility than out in society on his own, since he wasn't going to be tried in a criminal court. Made me sick then and it still does.

Fr. Roy has also led the annual protests at the School of the Americas in Ft. Bening, GA each year and has done tremendous work seeking peace and healing for those affected by our policies in Central and Latin America. He knew his standing with the womenpriests would get him on Rome's radar and could lead to this sad dismissal. The threat of him being defrocked has been hanging over him for years - though I'm very sad that Maryknoll has gone through with this. He is a good man and his dismissal is gross.

The Catholic hierarchy reminds me of the Republicans - they just don't get why people don't like them.

[Boogalou]

I said it before and I'll say it again, I am glad to see the Vatican has its priorities all in order. Top of the list is discriminating against women and LGBT people, followed by protecting paedophiles and preventing people from using contraception. This is disgusting.

[Hane]

Keep on digging your own grave, Vatican City. People are going to leave the Church in droves from stories like this, not allowing people who identify themselves as LGBT, and covering up various priests' sex scandals. Keep. On. Digging.

It. You'll definitely get more members by being conservative asshats! Opus Dei is sure to help your cause, too! :twisted:

Here's the thing: I have actually read of Church leaders saying that they'd embrace further exclusivity in the interests of having "a smaller, purer church" (their exact words). The progressive, post-Vatican II church of my youth, the one that cared about social justice, is damn-near dead.

[Arete]

Here's the thing: I have actually read of Church leaders saying that they'd embrace further exclusivity in the interests of having "a smaller, purer church" (their exact words). The progressive, post-Vatican II church of my youth, the one that cared about social justice, is damn-near dead.

Ratzinger can't live forever. This always shocks the hierarchies, but if they lose enough women, there is nobody raising future "purer" Catholics to become priests. God, these celibate old men are such tools, both in the West and the East.

[Palimpsest]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand have any of the convicted pedophile priests been laicized? I think not. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I'm afraid I have to correct you. Paul Shanley was eventually laicized, but probably not because of the pedophilia and connection to NAMBLA. The scandal just got too big and the Vatican considered him a loose cannon so cut him loose. If I remember correctly, Shanley did not go quietly. There were a couple of others defrocked from the Boston area too. Paquin? Porter?

That said, I hold Ratzinger personally responsible for the Catholic Church policy of protecting the priests, reassigning them, and the entire cover-up. He was the power behind the throne of John Paul II, in my opinion

Typical Ratzinger response:

Pope Prevented Defrocking Of Convicted Pedophile Priest

Associated Press

Four years after a priest who was a convicted child molester asked to be defrocked, his bishop pleaded with the future Pope Benedict XVI to remove the man from the priesthood. The Pope refused.

Letter from 1985 shows future pontiff refused to remove California priest convicted of child molestation, wrote 'good of Universal Church' must be considered

Four years after a California priest and convicted child molester asked to be defrocked, his bishop pleaded with the future Pope Benedict XVI to remove the man from the priesthood. Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger replied, urging caution.

"Consider the good of the Universal Church," Ratzinger wrote in a 1985 letter to Oakland Bishop John Cummins. "It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time."

Two more years would pass before the Vatican acted on the Rev. Stephen Kiesle's request to leave.

A copy of the letter, typewritten in Latin and signed by Ratzinger, was obtained by The Associated Press. It constitutes the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office.

The letter is part of years of correspondence beginning in 1981 between the diocese of Oakland and the Vatican about Kiesle, who pleaded no contest to misdemeanors involving child molestation in 1978.

The case then languished for four years at the Vatican before Ratzinger finally wrote to the Oakland bishop. It was two more years before Kiesle was removed; during that time he continued to do volunteer work with children through the church.

In the November 1985 letter, Ratzinger says the arguments for removing Kiesle were of "grave significance" but added that such actions required very careful review and more time. He also urged the bishop to provide Kiesle with "as much paternal care as possible" while awaiting the decision, according to a translation for AP by Professor Thomas Habinek, chairman of the University of Southern California Classics Department.

Lena, the Vatican attorney, said "paternal care" was a way of telling the bishop he was responsible for keeping Kiesle out of trouble. Lena said Kiesle was not accused of any child abuse in the 5 1/2 years it took for the Vatican to act on the laicization.

The future pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the "good of the Universal Church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age." Kiesle was 38 at the time.

Kiesle had been sentenced in 1978 to three years' probation after pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young boys in a San Francisco Bay area church rectory.

Cummins, the bishop, told the Vatican that the priest took a leave of absence and met with a therapist and his probation officer during the three years. It's not clear from the file where Kiesle lived during those years, but Cummins mentions temporary assignments in neighboring dioceses that never worked out.

As his probation ended in 1981, Kiesle asked to leave the priesthood and the diocese submitted papers to Rome to defrock him.

California church officials wrote to Ratzinger at least three times to check on the status of Kiesle's case and Cummins discussed the case with officials during a Vatican visit, according to correspondence. At one point, a Vatican official wrote to say the file may have been lost and suggested resubmitting materials.

Kiesle was ultimately laicized on Feb. 13, 1987, though the documents do not indicate how or why. They also don't say what role, if any, Ratzinger had in the decision.

Kiesle, who married after leaving the priesthood, was arrested and charged in 2002 with 13 counts of child molestation from the 1970s. All but two were thrown out after the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a California law extending the statute of limitations.

He pleaded no contest in 2004 to a felony for molesting a young girl in his Truckee home in 1995 and was sentenced to six years in state prison.

Kiesle, now 63 and a registered sex offender, lives in a Walnut Creek gated community, according to his address listed on the state's sex registry. An AP reporter was turned away when attempting to reach him for comment.

edit due to riffle

[Irishy]

Totally agree that the Vatican is digging its own grave. Foolish bastards. A number of popular liberal outspoken priests in Ireland have been censured.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 93586.html

[Izzybee]

This wonderful man spoke at my college last year - I actually didn't want to go hear him (I tend not to want to listen to priests in general) but one of my profs encouraged me to go listen. He laid out his position so eloquently, and it really did hurt him to be ostracized because of what he viewed as the right thing to do - not only that, but after a lifetime working for the Catholic church in war zones he doesn't get a pension or anything. This man has done so much for good with his life. At the time he spoke, this was all in process - I actually have a copy of some letters he wrote to the Vatican stating his position and pointing out why it doesn't clash with anything the bible says.

Sad to see it come to this.

[mirele]

Here's the thing: I have actually read of Church leaders saying that they'd embrace further exclusivity in the interests of having "a smaller, purer church" (their exact words). The progressive, post-Vatican II church of my youth, the one that cared about social justice, is damn-near dead.

This just makes me burn. Jesus made a point of inviting social outcasts to be with him: prostitutes, tax collectors, other public sinners. SINNERS. He ate dinner with them, went to their parties. He got down on the Pharisees when they told him he was a bad guy for doing that. Good Lord, these alleged followers think doing the same will damage them. *rolls eyes* To quote Billy Joel, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners / Than cry with the saints." Yup.

[Hane]

Palimpsest, thank you for that info. What disturbs me the most about this is that we can count the number of involuntarily laicized pedophile priests on the thumbs of one hand.

[Sola]

Ratzinger can't live forever. This always shocks the hierarchies, but if they lose enough women, there is nobody raising future "purer" Catholics to become priests. God, these celibate old men are such tools, both in the West and the East.

I doubt Ratzinger dying and a new pope being made would make much of a difference. How many of the cardinals who would be considered a possible pope are under the age of 50 and have a different outlook? Not one. The Catholic church will do what the Catholic church has always done, protect the priests at the expense of the children. One day that might change but I really don't think it will for a long time yet.

[Megan]

I doubt Ratzinger dying and a new pope being made would make much of a difference. How many of the cardinals who would be considered a possible pope are under the age of 50 and have a different outlook? Not one. The Catholic church will do what the Catholic church has always done, protect the priests at the expense of the children. One day that might change but I really don't think it will for a long time yet.

Eh, an old Pope can be a reformer. That's the way Vatican II happened - they couldn't agree on a Pope, so they elected an old guy that thought would do nothing. Surprise! He completely revolutionizes the Church. Unfortunately, the response from the rest of the church hierarchy was bad. After Vatican II, the conservative wing of the Catholic church made a move to prevent a similar modernization from ever happening. They attempt to prevent liberals/modernizers from becoming Cardinals so that they won't be considered for the papacy.* As a result, it's unlikely we'll get another reformer. The next Pope will likely be another uber-conservative like Ratzinger.

It's going to be an unpleasant shock when the church eventually schisms. They can't lock out the liberal, social justice Catholics forever. It's a significant portion of American Catholics, at the very least. Given the protection of pedophilia & the ridiculous anti-choice before anything else approach to reproduction, they're rapidly losing the trust of everyday Catholics.

*you don't have to be a Cardinal to be made Pope but it's pretty unlikely that a non-Cardinal would be elected.

[ADoyle90815]

I'm afraid I have to correct you. Paul Shanley was eventually laicized, but probably not because of the pedophilia and connection to NAMBLA. The scandal just got too big and the Vatican considered him a loose cannon so cut him loose. If I remember correctly, Shanley did not go quietly. There were a couple of others defrocked from the Boston area too. Paquin? Porter?

That said, I hold Ratzinger personally responsible for the Catholic Church policy of protecting the priests, reassigning them, and the entire cover-up. He was the power behind the throne of John Paul II, in my opinion

Typical Ratzinger response:

edit due to riffle

One other thing about Shanely is that before the scandal got so big that he couldn't be protected by the Catholic church, he was sent to California and even served at my grandparents' church. The thing is that my uncles all lucked out in that by the time he showed up, they were too old to be victims, I mean altar boys.