Wednesday, April 07, 2010

The "India Priest" De-Frock: More Smoke and Mirrors

The latest 'hot item' pushed by Silly Nitwits Against the Pope SNAP and the slip-and-fall scum in Minnesota is that a priest from India's "de-frocking" is not proceeding apace due to Church recalcitrance.

Wrong again (!!)

Here's part of the real story from CNS:

An Indian priest who is accused of sexually molesting two teenage girls while working in Minnesota from 2004 to 2005 told UCA News, the Asian Catholic news agency, that he is innocent but he would return to the United States to stand trial if called to do so.

Father Joseph Palanivel Jeyapaul left Minnesota for a family emergency one year into what was to have been a three-year assignment in the Diocese of Crookston. Shortly after he left, allegations of sexual abuse arose, were investigated by the diocese and his permission to serve in the diocese was revoked. He has never returned.

A Roseau County, Minn., prosecutor confirmed to The Associated Press April 5 that she has been trying to extradite Father Jeyapaul from the Diocese of Ootacamund in southern India to face two counts of criminal sexual conduct stemming from allegations of sexual assault by a girl who was 14 and 15 at the time of the events. Apparently no charges have been filed related to the alleged incident involving the second girl, who was 16 at the time.

...A response from Archbishop Angelo Amato, then secretary of the doctrinal congregation, dated May 2006, said that Father Jeyapaul's bishop in Ootacamund had been contacted "with the request that (his) priestly life be monitored so that he does not constitute a risk to minors and does not create scandal among the faithful."

...In a statement to AP, California attorney Jeffrey Lena, who represents the Vatican in an assortment of cases, said the Vatican has cooperated with Minnesota law enforcement authorities, providing Father Jeyapaul's address. He said the Vatican had also recommended he be laicized, or removed from the priesthood, because it believed the charges were serious enough, but that Bishop Amalraj had refused.

The red-highlighted sections should demonstrate that Atty. Anderson is ....ahhhh.......selectively releasing documents, to put it kindly. Surprised?? I'm not.

The most important point is this: the only Bishop immediately and fully responsible for ANY action taken against Fr. Jeyapaul is the Bishop in India, Amalraj. Crookston Diocese does not have the authority to prosecute, just as an Elm Grove cop cannot make a traffic-stop for an offense committed in Milwaukee. It's jurisdictional.

Second, note that the Vatican DID recommend "de-frocking" for the priest, but his Bishop, who HAS the authority to proceed, has refused to do so.

Did I mention that the territorial Bishop is immediately and fully responsible for taking actions in these cases?


Dan said...

"just as an Elm Grove cop cannot make a traffic-stop for an offense committed in Milwaukee. It's jurisdictional."
Actually, if they are deputized, they can. It'll piss off some people, but they could.
In Nevada, any police officer in Nevada can make arrests anywhere in Nevada. Not sure if that is true in WI., though.

GOR said...

As I understand it only Milwaukee cops can make arrests outside of Milwaukee - in fact anywhere in the State, just like the State Patrol. Something to do with Milwaukee's size and classification as a 'Class 1 City' - or something like that.

Anonymous said...

How do you rationalize the latest Pope screw-up away, DaddyZero"

"LOS ANGELES - The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including 'the good of the universal church,' according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature."

Dad29 said...

Same BS, different package.

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"

"Paternal Care" is Vaticanspeak for "watch that bugger and keep him where you can see his hands."

As usual, it's the local Bishop who failed--no surprise; Cummins was a bad guy.

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, his 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.

Note that the guy was convicted. Somehow, Cummins apparently "forgot" to notify others in the Church and the guy was given free rein.

Also note well: Cummins did NOT proactively seek 'defrocking' when the perp was convicted; he dithered around for 3 years. (What did I say about the 'local Bishop's responsibility?)

Also note that a Diocesan official complained (to the Bishop!!) that the Diocese was doing..........exactly 1981.

Finally, we note that this occurred in the 1980's--LONG before Ratzinger grabbed control of the system and established a "fast-track" defrock process.

My take? It was Cummins.