Concern about pope's handling (or mishandling) of clergy sex abuse scandal reaches to Walnut Creek

The Associated Press reports that back in 1985 the future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a  former priest, now 63 and living in Rossmoor, who had a record of sexually molesting children.

According to a 1985 letter bearing his signature, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said the arguments for removing Stephen Kiesle, then 38, from the priesthood were of "grave significance." Ratzinger, who then headed the Vatican's office involved in disciplining abusive priests, told Oakland Bishop John Cummins that he should use "as much paternal care as possible" with regard to Kiesle, the AP says. 

The future pope also said that any decision to defrock Kiesle (pictured here in 2002) must take into account "the good of the universal church."

"Paternal care" was apparently Ratzinger's way of telling Cummins to keep Kiesle out of trouble, AP says.

Ratzinger's letter went out eight years after Kiesle was sentenced in 1978 to three years' probation for pleading no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct. Kiesle was convicted of ttying up and molesting two young boys in a San Francisco Bay Area church refrectory, the AP says. When this probation ended in 1981, Kiesle asked to leave the priesthood, and the diocese submittted papers to Rome to defrock him.  That same year, the diocese recommended removing Kiesle from the priesthood.

Cummins himself asked the Vatican in a letter that Kiesle be defrocked, according to ABC7. In a letter, Cummins wrote:  "It does seem clear now, with hindsight, that quite probably Father Kiesle should never have been ordained."

But it apparently took six years for Kiesle to leave the priesthood. In 1985,  then Cardinal Ratzinger was saying that the case needed more time. During those six years that Rome was deciding Kiesle's future, he was allowed to return to Pinole to volunteer as a youth minister at St. Joseph Church, AP says. Cummins also wrote to Ratzinger, warning that returning Kiesle to the ministry would cause more of a scandal than stripping him of his priestly powers.

Ratzinger was more concerned about protecting the church's reputation than protecting children, Irwin Zalkin, an attorney representing some of the victims, told the AP.

"Cardinal Ratzinger was more concerned about the avoidance of scandal than he was about protecting children," Zalkin said in a phone interview. "That was a central theme."

Kiesle ultimately left the priesthood in 1987--and records don't show if Ratzinger had any role in that  decision, AP says.  Five years later, in 2002, he was arrested and charged with 13 counts of child molestation in the 1970s. All but two of those charges were thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down a California law that extended the statute of limitations. Kiesle pleaded no contest in 2004 to a felony charge for molesting a young girl in Truckee in 1995 and was sentenced to six years in state prison.

Kiesle was a defendant in a lawsuit filed against the Oakland diocese. Eight of Kiesle's victims settled with the Oakland Dioceses in 2005. They were awarded between $1 million and $1.5 million each.

In the settlement, Kiesle "admitted molesting many children and bragged that he was the Pied Piper," Lewis VanBlois, an attorney for six Kiesle victims, told the AP. " When asked how many children he had molested over the years, [Kiesle] said 'tons.' " Eight of Kiesle's victims settled with the Oakland Dioceses in 2005. They were awarded between $1 million and $1.5 million each.


Cummins, now 82 and retired, suggested to reporters that back in 1985 Ratzinger might have been following the tone set by Pope John Paul II regarding sex abuse allegations. John Paul's practice at the time, according to Cummins, was to slow these cases down. "You just didn't walk out of the priesthood then," Cummins said.

The Vatican confirmed that Ratzinger signed the 1985 letter regarding Kiesle. Two Vatican representatives tried to downplay any suggestion that then-Cardinal Ratzinger tried to cover up the case.

One told the AP that the letter was a typical form letter asking that the diocese to proceed carefully and to guard against future abuse. Another representative said that Ratzinger was asking for more careful study take place.

Buena Vista residents not happy about proposed wireless tower in their Walnut Creek ‘hood

Around 200 residents of the Buena Vista neighborhood have signed a petition and written letters to the city opposing AT&T’s plans to build a wireless antenna on the grounds of St. Stephen’s Church. The Walnut Creek Planning Commissioners will discuss this proposal at their Thursday night’s meeting—along with a city staff recommendation that they grant the conditional use permit necessary to allow the project to go forward.


This is the second time in about a month that a wireless service company has proposed locating one of their towers in a Walnut Creek neighborhood—and faced opposition from residents. Clearwire made what was described as an ill-prepared proposal to build a 28-foot monopole near the playing field at Walnut Heights Elementary.

It is interesting how these companies are making these local wireless antenna bids to a public school and a Catholic church site, perhaps hoping that the owners of these properties—the Walnut Creek School District and the Diocese of Oakland—are searching for ways to earn extra revenue in challenging financial times. What’s up with that? Another common theme: Both companies, in an attempt to alleviate aesthetic concerns about their towers, have proposed dressing them up to look like trees.

Actually, the Clearwire proposal was pretty quickly rejected by the Walnut Creek School district after about 100 Walnut Heights residents and parents showed up at a community meeting to voice their opposition.

AT&T isn’t feeling the love either for its proposal, despite making a quick modification by moving the proposed antenna to a different location on the church property, which sits at the western reaches of San Luis Road. AT&T has said it would reduce the tower’s height from 28 feet to 12 feet, and disguise it as a “monopine, rather than a broadleaf,” with each antenna panel having a needle cover to further disguise them from view. The antenna would go up on a southeast corner of the church property, on a knoll which stands above the surrounding homes.

Aesthetics are key to the project, because, legally, residents can’t object grounds of concerns about safety and health. Federal Communications Commission regulations only bar wireless communication facilities if they exceed federal limits on electronic-magnetic emissions. AT&T submitted an analysis showing that the radio frequency output of this proposed tower would not exceed FCC stands for Maximum Permissible Exposures. “The project will not have deleterious effects on the public health, safety or welfare,” the staff report says.

So, aesthetics are the issues that both city staff and residents are mostly addressing in their statements about why the proposal should or should not go through.

City staff says that the modification AT&T made in its original proposal, including reducing the height and its location within a knoll of mature trees, will make it less visible from all vantage points. “Strategically placed landscaping will provide additional screening which will minimize the visibility of the antenna tree. “

The staff report also says the equipment won’t make too much noise: “The equipment will not exceed 60 db at the nearest adjacent property line, which is the maximum typically allowed in residential districts. “

Neighbors of the church remain wary of AT&T’s proposal, citing concerns about health and safety—even though they know this issue can’t be considered. They are also worried about aesthetics, noise, affect on views and property values, and AT&T’s motives. They question the necessity of building the tower in this particular location, when they all report very satisfactory service in their area. They say allowing this tower in their neighborhood could set a precedent that would give companies an argument to propose more towers. They also wonder why the city, which has a policy of preferring that these towers go up in locations where such towers already exist, isn’t insisting do likewise.

Some comments from Buena Vista neighbors on the wireless tower proposal:

--“There are a number of reasons for our opposition but we are very concerned that the erection of this structure would compromise the character and aesthetics of not only our neighborhood, but other surrounding neighborhoods. .. We sincerely believe that a cell tower would produce a deterioration in the aesthetics and be in no homeowners’ best interest.”

--“Since AT&T changed the nature of the proposal and there are many residents who were not aware of the proposal at the time of the January meeting. One concern among residents is that AT&T has been making misrepresentations in the information it has been providing the city.”

--“I believe this issue is far more than an aesthetic one. Telecommunications has morphed into much more than mobile phone communication. Responsible policymaking involves looking at precedent and consequences. With the industry constantly changing, the likelihood is high that AT&T would want to place additional towers. The proverbial ‘foot in the door’ is a threat to the very fabric of our neighborhood that cannot be denied.”

--“I know we don’t have any problems with cell coverage in this immediate area. “