Remember what this whole campaign against the Pope is: It is an attempt by very liberal, sometimes gay, American Bishops and their handmaidens in the media to discredit the one man who has done the most to stop the child abuse in the church: Pope Benedict. Benedict is appointing bishops who will clean up the church, remove the filth from the clergy, and the old guard is fighting hard to keep the clergy very liberal, and perhaps even very gay. Pope Benedict threatens all of that, so they want him out.
In the latest Times article , they portray John S. Cummins as a blameless archbishop, who desperately attempted to get a priest defrocked, but the Vatican would not let him do it.
Now – remember the Milwaukee case: the media refused to tell you the whole story. There, the local gay archbishop they held up as a paragon of virtue used $450,000 of the church’s money to secretly pay off his gay lover, then threatened teachers in his school with libel suits if they accused priests of abusing children, then called the victims “squealers” and then said that the victims are sometimes very “aggressive” sexually. Yet the MSM stories about Milwaukee told you none of that. Instead he was portrayed as trying to get priests defrocked, while the Vatican opposed it. Which was the exact opposite of truth.
In the new Kiesle case from Oakland, the local bishop is again portrayed as bravely trying to get the Vatican to do something about the abusers in his midst, while he attempts to do everything he can to prompt action. Far, far from the truth:
The record of John S.Cummins the MSM’s heroic bishop of Oakland, is also very bad. Once again, he and the Times are trying to take the blame from the local liberal bishop where it belongs, and throw it onto the conservative Vatican.
Why is the Times trying to protect these obviously smarmy local bishops?
Until this spring, the longtime bishop [John S. Cummins} kept the Rev. Robert Freitas on the job despite accusations made in 1985 that the priest molested two teen-age boys, one of whom was paid a settlement. Bishop Cummins halted Father Freitas’ chaplain duties at a retirement home for nuns in April after police filed criminal charges against the priest. A third victim recently told police that the priest had repeatedly fondled his genitals and performed oral sex on him while he was a teenage church volunteer in 1979 and the early 1980s. The victim helped police secretly record a confession from Father Freitas, but the priest has pleaded not guilty to the molestation. When the first two victims took their allegations to the diocese in 1985, church officials investigated, then suspended Father Freitas and ordered him into treatment. The church did not forward either boy’s claim to authorities. After counseling, Father Freitas was assigned to a desk job at an Oakland charity that helps AIDS patients. Years later, at his request, the diocese let him return to ministry as a chaplain. For several years, he also lived in the rectory of church with a school.
From the Mercury News:
For most of its 46-year history, the Diocese of Oakland was led by two men. One did not want even his closest advisers to know that his priests had molested children. The other, his subordinates say, was happier not knowing.
Bishops Floyd Begin, who served until his death in 1977, and John Cummins, who took over for Begin and served until 2003, had vastly different leadership styles, but the result was identical: Priests accused of child molestation were allowed to serve in parishes after they were reported to diocese officials. Some of them continued to abuse again and again.
In a series of depositions obtained by MediaNews reporters, former diocese leaders described a system that allowed at least 10 accused priests to remain in ministry for years — sometimes decades — after sexual misconduct was reported.
Molestation complaints were kept secret from other clergy and the community. Accused priests were sent away for treatment and then returned to the diocese to serve in other parishes.
Diocese officials did not contact police about the allegations until such reporting became required by law in 1997
…Broderson remained in the diocese for another 18 years, serving in four other parishes, until he was forced into retirement in 1993. In his deposition, Broderson acknowledged molesting children on a “reasonably constant” basis from the early to mid-1970s. In at least four cases, he abused multiple boys from the same family.
…In 1982, Tollner’s sister-in-law reported that he had molested his retarded 22-year-old nephew, who had a mental age of 12. Then-chancellor Crespin wrote a memo to Cummins, describing the abuse and additional reports of “suspicious behavior” involving young boys, alcohol and drugs in the hot tub Tollner had installed on the rectory roof.
“There were some parishioners in the St. Philip Neri parish who were concerned about the young people that he was inviting to the rectory and having drugs — marijuana, I think — and alcohol with them,” Crespin testified.
Crespin, who had attended St. Patrick’s Seminary in Menlo Park with Tollner, suggested to Cummins that they needed to take action about the wayward priest. Cummins said he would think about it. Tollner remained pastor at St. Philip Neri for another two years.
“Basically, I think the bishop wasn’t quite sure how to proceed,” Crespin testified.
And even in the Kriesle case, after he was defrocked, Cummins let him serve in his parishes. When people complained, he did nothing:
Four years after he was defrocked, he began to volunteer as a youth minister at St. Joseph in Pinole, where he had served before his time at Our Lady of the Rosary.
In May 1988, an outraged worker at the diocese’s Office of Youth Ministry wrote a letter asking why Kiesle remained in place after three complaints about having the former priest in such an inappropriate position had been lodged in the previous eight months — most recently to Cummins.
During a 2005 deposition, a plaintiffs attorney asked former bishop Cummins if he had ever publicly identified any accused priests before his retirement.
“I don’t think that’s the approach we took,” he responded. “What we did do is invite those who were victims, and especially in those parishes, to please come forward if they felt that that was what they wished. I don’t think we went in the other direction of announcing the whole docket on (them), no.”
Attorney Jeffrey Anderson asked: “Have you ever, to this day, ever taken any initiative to make the private facts that a priest was an offender, and that you knew it, known to the public?”
“No,” Cummins responded.
And then there is this:
The chapter on Always Our Children, the flawed USCC committee document promoting homosexuality reveals the influence of gay activists in formulating policies developed by the USCC. Fr. James Schexnayder, founder of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries (NACDLGM) and a long-time Dignity chaplain in San Francisco with connections to New Ways Ministry, was a consultant for the document. Likoudis traces Schexnayder’s history of promoting the gay lifestyle particularly among teenagers in the Catholic schools. The revelations are so shocking one can hardly believe any bishop would support him. But he was a darling of the Oakland Diocese and credits his success in advancing the gay agenda to his bishop, John Cummins. Likoudis describes Bishop Cummins boasting of “how he and the other California bishops ‘worked behind the scenes’ to pass the ‘consenting adults’ legislation…at a meeting coordinated by Fr. Schexnayder’s homosexual outreach ministry” It legalized “adulterous cohabitation, oral sex, and sodomy between consenting adults.” Cummins headed the California Catholic Conference at the time which “was reeling from a number of high profile sex scandals.”
This event took place in the Oakland Diocese, where the same Bishop [Cummins] and six priests concelebrated a homosexual-lesbian Mass.
“It wasn’t just the piano player, dressed in a skintight, black, see-through body shirt, iridescent sparkling beads, gold earring, white Levis, and a broad-brimmed Panama hat, pounding out the cocktail music; and it wasn’t just the specially designed rainbow banners; and it wasn’t just the gay ‘security troops’ marching around the church with their cellular phones and walkie-talkies; and it wasn’t just the homosexual and lesbian couples walking hand in hand, with their children in tow; and it wasn’t just the aging Dignity aficionados in their too-small Dignity T-shirts: but all combined to create a ‘queer atmosphere’ that signifies Amchurch’s evolution into a façade for the homosexual movement” (2).