I would like to point out that in the Kiesle case that is the main subject of this thread, the molester/priest committed his crimes between November of 1977 and May, 1978, and he ceased functioning as a priest in August, 1978. He remained a priest until he was laicized in 1987, but was not allowed to function as a priest after 1978. His local bishop, John Cummins, took action and removed him from ministry as soon as the crimes were discovered. He was prosecuted for his crime. He received a suspended 3-year jail sentence and was on probation. Perhaps not the severe sentence he deserved, but that's a matter for the criminal justice system. Child molestation is one of the hardest crimes for a prosecutor to prove, so criminal charges are often settled by plea bargain, dismissed, or never filed. After his completion of probation, he was most likely forgotten - I'm afraid that happens a lot in a free society. And since he was a child molester, he continued to seek opportunities to have contact with children - by volunteering to work with youth groups.
But do note that in this case, the local bishop took action quickly and removed the priest from ministry. The fact that laicization took a long time, is moot - the man did not function as a priest after his bishop removed him from ministry.

The previous thread discussed the case of Lawrence C. Murphy, who served at St. John's School for the Deaf in Milwaukee from 1950 to 1974. The Archbishop of Milwaukee forced Murphy to resign in 1974, because of allegations of sexual abuse of children at the school. After that, Murphy lived in a home his family owned in far northern Wisconsin. He was never given an official assignment as a priest after his removal in 1974, but he served occasionally as a vacation substitute, celebrating Mass at various churches in his area. There were no incidents of sexual misconduct reported after 1974. He died in 1998, still a priest - but never had a job as a priest after he was removed from employment in 1974. Again, the local bishop took action, and also referred the case to local law enforcement authorities, who did not file charges.

Most likely, both of these cases could have been handled better. Most likely, every criminal case could have been handled better. But the fact of the matter is that both of these cases were handled by church authorities, and the priest-molesters were removed from ministry.

But Andrew Sullivan and other reporters are out to get Rome, so they've set the standards higher. They seem to be using these two cases to attempt to prove that Rome wasn't doing its job. Even though these cases were handled locally and the priest/molesters were removed from ministry, Sullivan and the others now thing the case isn't complete until Rome puts its imprimatur on the whole thing by laicizing the offending priest with alacrity. It's like demanding that President Obama sign off on the sentence of every criminal in Tucumcari - and if Obama doesn't, then he's "soft on crime." If a priest is not allowed to function as a priest, laicization offers little benefit to anyone. The priest is still technically required to remain celibate and to obey his bishop in clerical matters, so laicization allows him to get married in the Catholic Church and to function in the Catholic Church as a lay person. The unlaicized priest who is not allowed to function as a priest, is somewhat of a pariah in the Catholic Church. Seems to me, that Mr. Sullivan should prefer the criminal priest to remain a pariah. But yes, punitive laicization is a clear sign that Rome disapproves of child molestation. It just seems to me that it misses the point. The main things are to remove the priest-molester from ministry and to refer him to criminal prosecution. If the local bishop has done that, then I think he's done his duty. And if the bishop has done what he's supposed to do, there's no need for Rome to do anything further.

It's true that Catholic neoconservatives contend that the only true authority in the Catholic Church is the Pope, so they don't completely trust any decision that hasn't been made in Rome. But that isn't the way the Catholic Church is supposed to work. The Pope is "primus inter pares" (first among equals); but in most situations, the buck is supposed to stop at the desk of the local bishop. If the local bishop fails to handle an incident of child abuse or molestation, that's another matter. If Mr. Sullivan has his way, then Rome will be involved in every such case - thus furthering the "cult of the pope" and limiting the autonomy of local dioceses. No, thank you, Mr. Sullivan - I prefer that Rome keeps its grimy political hands out of the day-to-day activities of my parish and my diocese. And I'm mad as hell that Rome has rejected the American translations of prayers Americans use at Mass, and that Rome is investigating women religious (nuns) in the U.S.

The crimes against children in the Catholic Church and the subsequent coverups were a horrible thing. But as I've said before, the vast majority of parishes had no such crimes, and the vast majority of bishops did not cover up the crimes that happened in their dioceses. Please remember that the number of priest-molesters was about five percent. I have no data on the number of bishops who covered up crimes - but I suspect the number is far lower than people might think.

-Joe-