News & Views from 465 California Street

We called him “Kes”

Clint Reilly
Apr
20
2010

We called him “Kes.” He was a big, burly guy who played center on the basketball team and hurled the shot put in track.

Kes was an excellent student; very smart. We liked him. He was our classmate at St. Joseph’s High School in Mountain View and St. Patrick’s College/Seminary in Menlo Park during the 1960s.

There were hundreds of students in the seminary and dozens in our class. The all-male seminary was filled with young Catholic teenagers and men studying to become priests from throughout the Bay Area, Sacramento and the Central Valley, as well as Hawaii.

On the two campuses, students ranged from 13 to 25 years old.

Kes and I were both students for the priesthood from the Oakland Diocese so we sometimes commuted home together on Christmas and holidays. I left in 1969 but Kes stayed and was ordained a priest in 1972.

“Kes” was Steve Kiesle, the pedophile priest who was allowed to continue in his role for years after being convicted for tying up and molesting two young boys in a church rectory in 1978.

Kiesle’s story has taken on new weight after recent revelations that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger – now Pope Benedict – ignored pleas from Oakland Bishop John Cummins to remove Kiesle from the priesthood in 1985.

At the time, Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge of these matters under Pope John Paul II. He cited Kiesle’s young age (he was 38) and the damage his firing would do to “the good of the Universal Church” in his decision to delay action against Kiesle.

Kiesle apparently molested numerous children during his years as a priest. He also pleaded no contest to a felony and served time in jail for molesting a young girl at his Truckee home after being forced out of the priesthood in 1987.

I haven’t seen Steve in more than 40 years. But I have read the many news stories and compared notes with my old seminary classmates – almost all of whom are happily married with kids – having left the seminary long before they were ordained to the priesthood. There are also a few fellow seminarians who came out publicly as gay after exiting and are living full, productive lives.

Here are three reasons why the Kiesle case is so deeply troubling.

First, the all-male seminary had no sex education programs whatsoever. None. The philosophy seemed to be that if a young man found out about sex, he would clearly not choose celibacy.

This head-in-the-sand, cover-their-eyes approach was profoundly irresponsible. The vast majority of seminary students dropped out and never became priests and their preparation for sexual socialization was sorely lacking. And those who became priests were woefully unprepared for the super-human demands of celibate life.

Second, Kiesle had a predilection toward young children as a seminarian. He was known to fraternize with small children who were most often under 10 years old. His focus on pre-adolescent kids was noticed by his peers. However, naïve teenagers in the seminary’s asexual bubble had no idea that such behavior was potentially pathological or even abnormal. The adults should have known better.

Third, the priest faculty ignored telltale signs of possible pedophile tendencies by Kiesle for 12 years in the seminary and many more years as a priest. Numerous children were molested by a priest who never should have been ordained in the first place. Once ordained, he was not monitored by priest peers or diocesan authorities to prevent the molestation of innocent children whose lives have been permanently scarred.

Sadly, Steve Kiesle is not the only graduate of St. Joseph’s and St. Patrick’s to molest children or teenagers. The names of many others were reported in a scathing MediaNews exposé from 2008.

We will never know if Steve Kiesle himself might have been saved if the seminary had intervened with appropriate help when he was just a young man.

But we know for sure that his innocent victims would have been spared had he been diagnosed and expelled.

Comments (16)

  • Yes, there are good many programs and changes the Catholic Church could have done and let’s hope have now implemented worldwide, not just in hot zones where this has been exposed. The most aggregious of course is the Vatican’s response both then and now. We need to keep the heat on this abysmal Vatican heirarchy. Blaming the media and statements such as “I won’t be intimidated” by the Pope is astoundingly poor PR and judgement, not to mention dare I say, unseemly for a Christian.

    Posted by: melinda maginn | April 20th, 2010 at 1:22 pm

  • Thanks, Clint, for your columns this week and last. As a former classmate of both you and “Kes”, I’m writing in response to what I see as the three major issues involved here: the priestly celibacy requirement, homosexuality and the clergy, and the crime of pedophilia.

    Perhaps the least “discussable” subject is the mandate for priestly celibacy in the Catholic church. We know it’s a medieval custom which has been cast (over the centuries, and recently more emphatically) in what amounts to a no-win situation that regards celibacy as somehow a “higher calling” than marriage. You either agree with the Pope’s absolute rule that priests can’t get married, or agree that the issue is irrelevant to the declining number of clergy and practicing Catholics. You either agree that the Pope is infallible, or you realize that he’s subject to public-relations pressure and the preservation of power and authority as much as any politician. I’ve maintained contact with numerous former priests who are now happily married, and have no doubt that they could (and perhaps would) function as spiritual advisors and counselors in a priestly role if it were not for this unfortunate ironclad rule. Either way, it seems the opinion of one lay person (with the possible exception of Hans Kung) is irrelevant to the road the Catholic church will take.

    As an aside, over the years I’ve had the good fortune to meet female (non-Catholic) priests and one female bishop who serve as excellent examples of the priestly life. Yet, although “altar boys” have been replaced by individuals of both genders assisting in liturgical services, the Catholic church (like most other major male-controlled “organized” religions) excludes women from the priesthood. This practice of ordaining only males has a much longer tradition than the celibacy requirement, but in the long run I believe it’s just as counterproductive.

    Regarding homosexuality and the clergy: I was surprised when one of my brothers (a gay man) told me, years after I had left the seminary, that the swimming pool at St. Patrick’s was a magnet for gay activities every summer. It wasn’t that the seminary taught that women are inherently sinful — during my six years at St. Joseph’s, there was simply very little mention of women at all (with the notable exceptions of St. Teresa of Lisieux, various female saints and martyrs, occasional contacts with the seminary office manager, and the Little Sisters of the Holy Family who prepared our meals and did our laundry). During the first years of high school, we were allowed no newspapers, magazines, radio or television — so that, unlike our contemporaries in “outside” schools, there was no orientation to the role of women, much less the role of sexuality, in a functioning society. Although there was a strict rule against setting foot in another seminarian’s room, homosexuality was neither prohibited nor promoted — it was neither accepted nor rejected, neither sinful nor not-sinful: the subject was simply never addressed. It may seem incredible (and totally irresponsible) now, but in the early 1960s we lived in a truly asexual environment during our adolescence. I cannot recall ever hearing the word “sexuality” (much less “homosexuality”) being uttered by a single faculty member during six years at St. Joseph’s.

    The utter failure of the seminary system in this respect (as you and many of our classmates have observed) was that there was NO focus at all on sexuality or the development of mature social and sexual relationships. For many of us who entered the seminary at the impressionable age of 13, the faculty (and the seminary “Rule” which they enforced) were an omnipresent and all-powerful authority over every activity of our waking hours. The total lack of any discussion of sexuality conveyed a clear if unspoken message that the subject was totally irrelevant to our lives. As you said in your column, “the adults should have known better”.

    The reality that many priests survived the 12 years to become excellent spiritual leaders and competent counselors in social and marital matters, and that many former seminarians and priests have developed long-lasting and rewarding family relationships (including several classmates who are living in same-sex relationships), is in my opinion despite (rather than due to) the total lack of healthy social orientation fostered during those high school and college years.

    Regarding pedophilia: Although I have heard comments attempting to relate the sexual abuse of children to homosexuality (citing the Catholic position that homosexuality is “inherently sinful” and “a violation of eternal divine law”, and drawing the conclusion that any “aberrant” sexual behavior predisposes a person to all other aberrant behavior), there is no demonstrable relationship between homosexuality and the criminal sexual abuse of children. (If there were, of course, we might expect that other sexually-related violations of “eternal divine law”, such as the use of condoms during an AIDS epidemic, might also predispose those sinners toward pedophilia.)

    As to how a priest could become a pedophile (or how a pedophile could become a priest), I reject the notion that the seminary “pushed” students into abusive behaviors. However, I think we agree that there was simply NO attempt to evaluate the maturity, motivations, and proclivities of individual seminarians (much less to provide guidance or counseling for those who appeared to be developing undesirable or abusive character traits). As you wrote, “we will never know if Steve Kiesle himself might have been saved if the seminary had intervened with appropriate help when he was just a young man.” The faculty were presumably confident that they were not FOSTERING abusive behavior — but their failure in this respect was that there was no attempt to ASSESS whether seminarians were developing abusive behavior, or to aggressively “weed them out” when such behavior DID become apparent. You could get kicked out of the seminary for possessing a transistor radio, or for eating unconsecrated communion wafers, but there was no attempt whatsoever to evaluate seminarians for truly aberrant social development.

    Our academic education was outstanding, and there was a relatively strong focus on intramural sports (at both of which, as you noted, “Kes” excelled); our orientation to healthy social relationships, however, was almost nonexistent (although I do recall one personal late-night meeting with the seminary president in which he expressed concern that I was perhaps “too altruistic” for the priesthood).

    It’s fairly obvious that if you never look for something, you’ll almost never find it. The overshelming majority of seminarians undoubtedly consider child sexual abuse despicable; however, simply entering the seminary does not guarantee that serious character faults will never develop — and if there’s never any attempt to look for those faults, there’s an excellent chance that individuals with those faults will not be obstructed on the path to ordination as clergy. At worst, a small minority of individuals with immature or abusive character traits in the 1960s (and ’70s and ’80s) were simply moved up the ladder each year and eventually ordained along with their classmates. As a result, the good work done by the majority of the clergy is now overshadowed by the incredible trauma inflicted by those very few individuals.

    Various authorities in the Church now maintain that “I had grave concerns about this individual’s suitability for the priesthood.” But in the case of our classmate “Kes”, as in too many others, there was a practice of “passing the buck” from the seminary to the parish to the diocese to the archdiocese (and in his case, to the Vatican). Bishop Cummins is to be commended for his repeated attempts in support of removing Steve Kiesle from the priesthood, and his repeated warnings to the Vatican that failure to act could cause ongoing harm. With the benefit of twenty years of hindsight, we can only express regret that Cummins didn’t simply refuse to wait for approval from Rome and instead take it upon himself to remove “Kes” from the priesthood and all further contact with church youth groups.

    I don’t pretend to know whether intervention, counseling, and/or therapy at some time during the twelve years he spent in the seminary might have prevented our classmate’s later molestation of kids. However, the tacit failure of church authorities to confront his behavior at any point prior to his eventual arrest in the 1970s was an inexcusable offense against his victims, his parishioners, and Steve himself (I realize I’ll be criticized for that last part, but I believe that if you see an individual about to commit a crime and you have the power to prevent it, you harm everyone involved if you fail to act). Failing to immediately provide counseling and therapy for him AND his victims, attempting to cover up the scandal, delaying his separation from the priesthood for over eight years, and taking no action to prevent and/or prosecute similar abuses by other clergymen, are simply outrageous.

    Unfortunately it appears the hierarchy in the Catholic church hasn’t learned much in the past 35 years.

    Posted by: Joe Fanucchi | April 21st, 2010 at 12:39 am

  • Joe – your comments are actually more thorough and cogent than my original article . I too have a great appreciation for the education we received in the seminary . But your observations are absolutely on the mark .There is no excuse for the toleration of child abusers and for the big gaps in seminary education , training and oversight . It’s time for the Church to take a hard look at allowing marriied clergy . Thanks …Clint

    Posted by: clint reilly | April 21st, 2010 at 12:50 am

  • Good column in today’s Tribune. I haven’t seen any published comment, however, that–at least, in the accompanying English translation of Cardinal Ratzinger’s 1985 letter–there exists no instance of the word “child” or its cognates. To use the familiar expression, “that’s all you need to know” about Cardinal–and now Pope–Ratzinger.

    Posted by: Ken H. | April 21st, 2010 at 7:41 am

  • Your column in the CC Times today really struck a chord in this house! My husband was a NJ kid (during the period when the Church was essentially ‘buying’ children–for $300 a year they were offered the whole thing; room, board, tuition, books, clothing thing to families who couldn’t even feed a kid for a year on $300!) who was sent by his parents to a jr. Carmelite seminary when he was about 10, and he stayed thru the process until he was 21. Of the hundreds who began, and the 40 or so in his high school group (Class of ’64), only 3 became priests, and one is still active as a priest. Yes, there is at least one molester in prison, but mercifully, he never became a priest; the molest and crimes remain, however. Many of the points you make and comments are spot on from what I know of the years in Hamilton, later in Penn. and Niagara Falls.

    Most, when they left disappeared under cover of darkness, lest their decision ‘contaminate’ those remaining, and it was only thru the miracle of the internet they were able to reconnect, and had a stunning 40th year class reunion, which included an amazing compilation of Super 8 film clips one of the classmates made, chronicling their passage thru high school. Fascinating stuff to watch these men come together recalling such an intense shared experience; most are married with children, and the wives spent a good deal of time comparing notes and saying “Yours does that too?!?”

    Even more amazing is talking with them–there is sort of a core group who have become quite close, even having lived entirely different lives all over the world–the perfect bubble of care they seem to have lived in during those years. To a man, they were totally STUNNED when the molest scandals began to unravel in the US, and continue to be completely blown away by the depth, dimension and story arc. They uniformly swear there was never a whiff of anyone in their world ever approaching any one of them! They do recall gay guys, most of whom left in due time, but those of us who married them/grew up in other faiths/the Real World are stunned they were stunned. I grew up in the Diablo Valley, and we kids knew which priests were trouble and who to never be alone with, albeit I was raised a heretic Lutheran. (The Girl Scout buddy system has served me well a number of times!)

    Enjoy your take on a number of subjects-you obviously enjoy your work.

    Sincerely,
    C.M.

    Posted by: C.M. | April 21st, 2010 at 7:42 am

  • Let’s find a real solution for these problems.

    No. 1 – it is not a ‘sex’ crime – it has more to do with domination, control and pedophiles definitely are in that category. So, let’s call a spade a spade – rape and molestation is about power and torturing another person and carries the same results as if the abuser took a knife and sliced the victim apart; the scars are permanent and the horror never leaves.

    No. 2 – suitable punishment; especially when the victim is a trusting child. Simple–we ha ve the dath penalty. Execute a few of these Fathers, Priests, Uncles, Coaches and e will finally see results. Yes, my Father should have been executed when he raped me – then he would not have been able to rape my younger Sister and a very clear message would have been sent. After execution, label the tombstone permanently with ‘RAPIST’. Let each state decide which method of execution is appropriate. I don’t think we will have to

    No. 3 – hold the collaborator accountable. The Mother who walks away and doesn’t protect. The Church leaders who find excuses and don’t act. What finally woke my mother up was when I, as an adult, told her very clearly that she had to keep him under control and away from my youngest sister. That if I ever suspected that he touched her, I would file charges with the police, have him arrested and her declared an unfit mother and take custody of my sister. THAT WORKED! She was left alone.

    Posted by: G. R. | April 21st, 2010 at 7:44 am

  • Today’s column mentions three reasons why the Keisle case is troubling. I think there’s a fourth reason you’re overlooking. It’s been clear now for many years, to anyone who follows the news, that some Catholic bishops have been covering up the sexual abuse of children and that most, if not all, of their peers remained silent for decades about what many of us regard as a particularly vile form of criminal negligence and/or obstruction of justice. The most troubling aspect of the Keisler case and of hundreds of others like it is that neither you nor any other CatholicI know personally seems to accept any responsibility for what your bishops have done or failed to do.
    Why should you? Because (I assume) you support the Church financially and thus help pay this bishops’ salaries.
    The biggest scandal facing the Church isn’t the sexual abuse of children by some very sick priests or even the massive cover-up of that abuse by the Church hierarchy. What is most shameful about Catholicism is that rank and file Catholics are content to be mere peons in their own Church, having no say whatsoever in determining major Church policy and accepting no responsibility for what their bishops do, often in total secrecy.
    Surely you know that ever since its creation, the bishops have worked to deny women living in the most wretched poverty access to modern contraception, and to convince those who do have access to it that it is sinful for them to use it. According to the World Health Organization, more than one woman dies every minute in childbirth somewhere in the world, and every year millions of women are driven out of desperation to obtain abortions. Do you or other members of the laity ever ask yourselves how many women have died unnecessarily over the last 60 years because of what your bishops have done?
    The U.S. Department of Health and Human resources estimates that gay teenagers are three times more likely than other kids to commit suicide; suicide is the most common cause of death for gay teens. Last November your bishops tried to destroy the legal marriages of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples in California, 36,000 people who love and care for one another. As a former Catholic, myself, I have to say that the bishops’ actions last fall constitute the ugliest and most vicious example of bigotry and religious fanaticism I’ve ever witnessed. (If there’s any difference between 17th-century English Puritans denying Catholics the right to go to Mass and 21st-century Catholics denying gays, and their children, the legal protections my wife and I enjoy as married people, I fail to see what that difference is.)
    And you–please correct me if I’m wrong–pay the bishops’ salaries. Are you proud of that?
    I hope one of your future columns will address the question of how it is possible to support the Church financially without making oneself an accomplice to some of the most heinous crimes against humanity any group of men have committed over the past half century. That is a column I would be very interested in reading. In the meantime, I do appreciate your taking the time to hear me out.
    Sincerely yours,
    John P

    Posted by: John P. | April 21st, 2010 at 7:46 am

  • It was difficult to read the account about your seminary educational experience and the more than tragic outcome with Kes. We are sort of contemporaries age wise as I remember both seminaries and considered attending but thought I would wait until I finished college before making a decision one way or the other. I was more inclined to consider a religious order, which I did, only to decide not to enter.

    The reason for not entering the monastic life probably had to do with my own concerns about celibacy, as I was always very attracted to the opposite sex. After nearly 50 years of marriage to the same wonderful woman I realize the correct decision was made after college.

    To the point of your article, my thoughts and feeling go out to the men and women who have been victims of any pedophile and in particular for those who have been victimized by a priest. Unfortunately, the enormous focus that has fallen on and is continuing to fall on the Catholic Church hierarchy and past practices at the seminary level is not fair. That is because focusing to such an extent on Catholic priests is not a true representation of all of the persons committing pedophilia.

    Bashing the Catholic Church, its hierarchy and its faithful is what the main stream media is intent on doing because they perceive Catholics as politically incorrect. Using the pedophilic priests’ victimization gives the press grain for the mill that they will grind away with for as long as they can.

    Just once it would be interesting if a reporter or columnist would present an article that gave factual information about the incidence of pedophilia in public education, various protestant religions, children’s organizations, youth groups and other non-affiliated human populations. Alas, that reality does not sell political correctness as it would show the problem widespread across the human spectrum.

    So your last statement is probably not reality. Had Kes been released from the seminary, as he well should have, there is no guarantee any innocent would have been spared his victimization. If he was inclined to that despicable behavior in the seminary, or as a priest, he probably would be no different in the secular world.

    Bill A

    Posted by: Bill A. | April 21st, 2010 at 7:48 am

  • Hi Clint I used to work at St.E’s while Janet was Volunteering.
    She is a good woman. I worked there for 9 years and was the best job i ever have had.
    So I found your article just looking up things on the web,about Steve.
    I am unfortunately one of Steve’s “victims” a “survivor”. While working at St. E’s I asked for advice on how to find Steve telling that I was a victim. I wanted to find him and go out for coffee and confront him,ask him why what was up etc.. I was going to do that so I could heal some more. I was told to go to the diocese and ask them, was told that they keep track of all priests weather still a priest or not. So I went to the diocese in SF on Church street in 1991.
    I asked the woman at the front if she could help me find an old family friend a priest who would come to dinner etc and that,I just was hoping to say hello and visit. I did not tell her that he abused me.
    She was quite happy to help. I wrote his name down as she asked, so she could go look it up, after a bit she came back and she said “There was never a priest by that name” I said oh yes there was at Santa paula in Fremont ca. I asked if we could spell his name in many different ways so she could go look again, because he was a priest by that name, so she went back again and then came back and had that strange look on her face and said,”perhaps he’s died or changed his name” I said “well should I go to Oakland then since he was in Fremont”, she said “No we all have the same info”
    I asked are you sure she assured me that their information was all the same and that it would be a waste of my time.
    Mind you I never misspelled his name! Crime # 2 first the abuse then this why would she do that.
    Well I have since found out sadly that it was just an indication of all the lies and hiding that The church, as a whole does to protect
    “The greater good of the universal church” as Ratzinger
    wrote when the bishop wrote trying to ask that he defrock Steve Kiesle.
    While It is true that if Steve were defrocked that that would NOT have stopped him from Abusing Children because he is a sick man,
    But What Defrocking Him Would Have Done was to make a very clear statement: That The Church Knew This Behavior Was Serious And Dangerous and Detrimental To The Lives Of Children, That It Was/Is a Crime and that This Man needed to be stopped and Law authorities contacted, and that the church Cared about Its Parishioners,it’s families it’s children> The “Political Correctness that Bill A is referring to is quite sadly, a defense! The reality is yes Sexual abuse does happen across society, But The Church hiding behind trying to look good save face for the “greater good Of the Universal Church” Focusing to such and extent on Catholic priests is something that needs to continue because it is wide spread in that institution, and Wrong! and against any way the church say’s one should act,the church say’s children should be protected! Moving priests around and denying the truth is so wrong and this all needs to change if the church want’s to get people back>
    Is SOOO Wrong and Is wide spread across the Church and Why would The catholic Church stand for this at all? Why Now by trying to protect the lies,Why Then? Children should Be a First priority always! Look how many lives have been damaged, Look how many “Future Catholics” have left the church because of them not being protected> Look how many people are suffering from the Protecting the “Greater good of the Universal Church”
    Thank you
    Melinda Costello

    Posted by: melinda costello | April 29th, 2010 at 8:06 am

  • Clint, I appreciate that you’ve written about your time with Kisele. This is the first time I’ve read such an angle about him, or for that matter, about St. Patrick’s.It is a resonating piece because I’ve known about Kiesle for the past ten years, and studied John Cummins, his supervising bishop, as well.

    I’m involved in the network of abuse survivors who work to support victims and expose the deceptions that continues to make the news. I know Kiesle victims. I know many other victims noted in the 2008 media news article you cited.

    A couple of comments. First, the recent iteration of this scandal has shown the depth and breadth of a sick, systemic cover up. Whatever excuses the Vatican and senior prelates (Cardinals and Archbishops) manufacture, the reality is, the pope and his cadre are absolutely tied to a sad and dangerous pathology of denial and blame shifting. Watching it unfold sickens me because there are still tens of thousands of victims who have not been able to speak up. Places like Mexico, Brazil and the Phillipines have strong catholic populations whose bishops have enormous political power which is used to repress the terrible stories that are now just leaking out. If those stories of abuse and cover up could be released, an enormous amount of healing could begin to occur. I believe the church would survive such a telling, and this pope could snatch his legacy back to something approaching respect were he to show the courage to demand a complete accounting. I fear he doesn’t have the guts.

    Second, a comment to Bill, who shifts the discussion to school teachers, etc. Bill, you are an apologist and part of the problem. The significant difference between this church cover up and a school teacher’s pedophilia, is that bishops routinely DID NOT call the police. They shuffled molesters knowing what they were. They obstructed police investigations routinely. John Cummins in fact obstructed several such investigations. A number of bishops themselves were molesters (although to his credit Cummins has never himself been accused).

    Studies indicate that 66% of US bishops knowingly shuffled molesters. That shuffling doesn’t happen in secular society. Bill, when you parrot that party line of “the media is blowing this up”, which is what the church hierarchy hopes you’ll buy into, you are supporting a corrupt regime. Stop it!

    People who love their church and their pope can show that love by being tough. Demand the stories of abuse. Require the pope open his archives before you’ll contribute another dollar to the bishop’s campaign. Use your power of reason to force this sick pathology to the surface.

    Don’t forget that the media is not the problem here. It is reporting a worldwide collection of facts that on its face and below its surface is monumental and deeply, deeply disturbing.

    Posted by: Dan McNevin | April 29th, 2010 at 9:56 am

  • It is like banging your head against a brick wall.

    The catholic church sets itself up as the fountainhead of knowledge, and a bunch of men, maybe 50% of whom are celibate according to Richard Sipe and others, all of whom have vowed or promised chastity, tell the rest of us what we can and cannot do sexually.

    They have strict instructions on everything, masturbation, sex before marriage, homosexuality, birth control, abortion, bestiality etc, etc etc.

    If they set themselves up as the fountain off all that is good, and tell the rest of us what we can and cannot do and think, then they better darn well live it themselves.

    What we have discovered however is that they diddle little boys, rape girls, steal money, get drunk, procure abortions, keep illicit wives, have bastard children, at the same rate is the rest of us.

    And then just to compound it all, the leaders, the bishops, hid it all away to “avoid scandal” and we would know none of it were it not for some brave journalists, who have been verbally abused by the hierarchy, but invariably proved right in the end.

    John P is right, those of us who left the church in disgust want to know why the rest of you are still paying those Bishop’s salaries, and keeping them in their fancy houses with their servants.

    Posted by: Michael C | April 29th, 2010 at 11:20 am

  • Ignored ,overlooked, no, these people are very patient. They see what they want and are willing to wait and groom those that they want. It’s all done for a very specific reason, sexual gratification.

    This is nothing new in the Roman Catholic Church. Look at what St. Paul taught the new believers. I paraphrase; Be very careful of those persons trying to infiltrate your small groups, teaching a gospel other than what Christ Jesus taught you. Do not listen, even if they appear as angels.

    Jesus would no more sit on a throne in the Vatican and wear the robes of a pope than he would ride in the pope or do any of the un-biblical things the RCC does. The Christian Church taught Freedom from Fear, not Fear of everything imaginable.

    Posted by: glorybe1929 | April 29th, 2010 at 11:26 am

  • Thank you for your article, Mr. Reilly.

    Because he was allowed to be ordained, Father Keisle had access to children and families in a way that no other member of society enjoys. He was also allowed to hear confessions, baptize, preach, and perform six of the seven sacraments. Are we still supposed to believe that men who rape children keep confessional secrets? Who’s kidding whom?

    Keisle was a sick boy and his so called superiors were so spiritually small that they allowed him to violate the bodies and souls of children and do it while acting as “another Christ.”. Any person, religious or lay, who knew he was a monster and allowed it to continue are morally culpable for the harm done to those kids. Our Catholic ancestors, having been taught that Jesus was the reliever of suffering, not the cause of it, would never have supported these men if they had known.

    These men of the Vatican and their minions as though they have never heard of Jesus. And those who keep supporting them with money should not call themselves Catholic.

    As a young woman I was told by good priests that seminaries were “very bad places” and that boys ( some, not all) were groomed for to be the sex toys of their superiors. And that often these boys became ordained and rose to the top of the hierarchy.

    It is high time that all of this is coming out in the open. Children will be saved and, please God, boys will not ever again enter minor seminaries in spite of the so-called fine education where they were taught what to think, not how.

    AW

    Posted by: Augusta Wynn | April 29th, 2010 at 1:44 pm

  • Thank you for commenting about Keisle. I think of him as sadistic and demonic and look forward to the day when he is behind bars forever.

    The Catholic church deserves all the press that it is receiving. I do not believe that the Pope or his supporters have any credibility. Kids and vulnerable adults have suffered enormously, many have suicided because of the cover-up.

    No mercy for the Pope, Bertone, Levada, Hoyos or Sodano.

    Incidentally, I don’t care if the perpetrators of sexual violence against kids and vulnerable adults are gay or straight. The crime is a felony and they must be held accountable. NO MERCY!

    Posted by: Frank Lostaunau | April 30th, 2010 at 7:31 pm

  • Correction: Cardinal Soldano.

    Clint, have you ever considered writing about trafficking in women and children into the US? I’m curious to read your thoughts.

    Posted by: Frank Lostaunau | May 1st, 2010 at 12:26 pm

  • You wrote “He…hurled the shot put in track.”

    I believe the correct phrase is “he put the shot.”

    Posted by: Fred Hollister | May 19th, 2010 at 11:13 am

Add a Comment

 

Home   |   Blog   |   Legal   |   Contact