ARCHBISHOP'S CURIA MUM ON CHILD SEX CONVICT PRIEST'S APPOINTMENT

Subject:	ARCHBISHOP'S CURIA MUM ON CHILD SEX CONVICT PRIEST'S APPOINTMENT
Date:	Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:27:51 GMT

Curia silent on paedophile priest's appointment in Malta

By David Lindsay
The Malta Independent
Sunday, January 31, 2010

The Archbishop's Curia this week chose to remain silent about the
nature of the appointment given to a Maltese priest in Malta in the
mid-1990s who was convicted of paedophilia in Italy in 2004.

While acknowledging that Fr Felix Cini had served in Malta between
1995 and 1996, and insisting that he had not returned to Malta since
the conclusion of Italian court action against him 2004, the Curia
refused to answer questions on where he had served in Malta, and in
what capacity.

In a right of reply (see letter on page 25) to last week's front page
story exposing how the appointment of the Maltese Fr Felix Cini to a
parish in Cercemaggiore, in the diocese of Campobasso, had caused a
split in the community after parishioners discovered gruesome details
of the priest's conviction and subsequent plea bargain on paedophilia
charges, the Maltese Curia states, "The priest involved was ordained
and incardinated in a diocese in Italy. Therefore, he is not a member
of the Maltese Diocese and does not fall under the discipline of the
authorities of this Diocese."

The Curia also clarifies that, "On his request, prior to the alleged
charges, he served in Malta for less than a year between 1995 and
1996 and then returned to Italy. Since 2004, he was never assigned
any pastoral ministry in Malta and did not even return to the
island."

The replies, however, raise more questions than answers. Subsequent
questions sent to the Curia, however, were only answered with a terse
statement to the effect that, "At this stage we insist on our right
of reply."

Most pertinent of all, The Malta Independent on Sunday had posed the
question of where and in what capacity had the priest served in Malta
between 1995 and 1996, and whether any background checks had been
carried out prior to his service in Malta.

It was a relatively short time span between 1996 and the end of 2002,
when the Italian investigation into Fr Cini began. And the Curia's
reluctance to answer the question of where and in what capacity he
had served in Malta fails to do justice to Maltese parents, who, it
could be convincingly argued, have a right to such information so as
to try to determine if their own children, who are generally reticent
for a number of reasons about coming forward with such information,
had been subject to undue attention as the Italian children had been.

The Curia's statement that since 2004 the priest had not been
assigned a pastoral ministry in Malta appears to imply that he had in
fact been assigned a pastoral ministry between 1995 and 1996, but a
request for clarification along such lines was also unanswered.

The Curia's statement that the priest had not returned to Malta since
2004 also raises questions, mainly over whether the Maltese Church
had been in contact with the priest to ascertain such information,
short of which such a statement would be inexplicable, but
questioning along such lines was also stonewalled.

An Italian investigation into Fr Cini had begun in late 2002, just
six years after he had served in Malta, and after 17 children aged
between 10 and 14 years of age reported having received undue
attention at the hands of the priest.

Charges were filed in 2003 and Fr Cini eventually submitted a plea
bargain in 2004, avoiding a lengthy trial and a possible prison
sentence, and instead being landed with a two and a half year
sentence in a special community.

The proper Italian legal term used is 'patteggiamento' -- in other
words he accepted the sentence to shorten the trial. Later he said
that he was advised to do so, even though he felt he was innocent and
that it was a case of mistaken identity.

He claimed that unnamed 'political pressure' was brought to bear upon
him to make him take this legal way. His claim was met with rather
widespread scepticism.

Although a number of Italian media reports claim he had returned to
Malta for some time following the sentencing, the Maltese Curia
insists that he has not returned to Malta since 2004.

The abuse took place while Fr Cini was in Comunita' Siloe in Sasso
d'Ombrone in the commune of Cinigiano near Grosseto.

During the investigation, all 17 children, accompanied by their
parents, testified to "undue attention" received from the priest. Two
computers were also taken from him and police investigators claimed
they found a history of porno-paedophile web pages having been
accessed.

After being posted to Cercemaggiore, the people of the small
community were outraged to find out through the Internet, and through
a local paper, about the murky past of the new priest in their
parish.

Some of the people were aghast that such a priest had been thrust
upon them without them receiving any warning, but others objected to
the protest.

They claimed that, in the months he has been in the new parish, he
has succeeded in attracting more and more young people to the church.
A candlelight protest was held, attended by many people, and 3,000
signed a petition asking the bishop to let him remain there. It was
also claimed that, ever since he came to Cercemaggiore, his behaviour
had been "impeccable".

Archbishop of Campobasso-Bojano, Monsignor GianCarlo Bregantini, has
announced that the priest is being sent elsewhere, thus closing the
issue, at least in his diocese.

More at:
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=100959

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.