Top Vatican official brought back sexual abuser "with conditions"

[Bluebear]

PORTLAND, Ore. – A top Vatican official who now oversees the office that handles cases of alleged abuse by priests once returned an accused priest to administrative duty in Oregon on the condition that he be barred from direct contact with children or teenagers.

As archbishop in Portland from 1986 to 1995, Cardinal William Levada removed Father Joseph Baccellieri in 1992 after learning about 20-year-old complaints involving teenage boys but allowed him to return on a limited basis under close supervision in 1994.

The move had conditions, according to a letter released Saturday in defense of Levada. The archdiocese's clergy personnel director outlined a plan approved by Levada that prohibited Baccellieri from having contact with children or teenagers.

Other conditions included continuous counseling and therapy, regular reporting by his therapist to the archdiocese, close monitoring, limitations on ministry activities and restrictions on living outside a parish setting or under the supervision of other priests.

Levada explained his decision not to tell any parishioners in a 2006 deposition to attorneys handling dozens of lawsuits against the archdiocese claiming abuse by Oregon priests.

"It might give people the implication that if they are being told this, that I am suspecting that he — he may be at risk — he may be a risk to their children," Levada said during questioning by Kelly Clark, one of the attorneys for dozens of alleged victims.

"If I thought Father Baccellieri would be a risk to any child, I would never have reassigned him," Levada said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100404/ap_on_re_us/us_church_abuse_levada

[Walk away]

1. Why didn't he go to jail? Don't repeat sex offenders go to jail?

Why wasn't he registered? It amazing the way the law just disappeared for these people.

[pnwmom]

4. Depends on whether the teens were of the age of consent. n/t

[Mojeoux]

5. "Children," it says and forced sex is rape no matter what age n/t

[pnwmom]

6. It says: "20-year-old complaints involving teenage boys."

No information about either age or force.

Clearly, it is morally wrong for any priest or other similar professional to take advantage of his position. But it is not always illegal or rape.

[SidDithers]

9. They weren't sexually assaulted if they were old enough?...

is that your reasoning?

Or are you suggesting it was consentual?

Sid

[pnwmom]

10. It would be wrong for a priest to have sex with a 16 or 17 year old of either sex.

And it would be justified to file such a complaint, even though the law might determine that the sex was "consensual." The priest would still be guilty of taking advantage of his position, which is wrong -- but in many places, not illegal.

[MichiganVote]

2. Since when are priests of any stripe the last word on what is best for children?

[Karenina]

7. Or WOMEN?

:evilgrin:

[Bluebear]

11. word

[DUgosh]

3. They just sent him to confession

So all is forgiven :sarcasm:

[charlie]

8. Another pair

One convicted in a civil trial, the other, criminal.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125420225