- At the time, the CDF did not have competence in the cases of clerical pedophilia.
- The case before the CDF concerned a request by a priest for a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state.
- It was not a punitive case or an appeal about a sanction.
- The request was submitted by the priest and not the priest’s diocese of Oakland.
- The CDF didn’t grant immediate dispensations to men who were not at least 40 years old.
- Once the CDF studied the case and the priest reached 40 years of age, the dispensation was granted. There was no cover up.
- If the Diocese of Oakland was pressing the Holy See to dispense this man so quickly, why did that same Diocese of Oakland permit the suspended priest to work as a volunteer with young people? The Holy See had nothing to do with that.
- The AP and now all other MSM outlets who without hesitation or verification pick up the AP’s sloppy work, never bother to do background and ask basic questions about procedures and timing. They fail in the basics of curiosity, much less journalistic professionalism.
11 April 2010
The facts of the Kiesle case
Fr. Zuhlsdorf kindly provides these facts of the Kiesle case the media refuses to mention, because they show the Holy Father is innocent of the accusations that hurl at him: