Posted on 03/24/2010 8:43:18 PM PDT by Cardhu
Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.
The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.
The documents emerge as Pope Benedict is facing other accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican’s chief doctrinal enforcer.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Let’s see the letters. The NY Times accuracy about the RCC worse than abysmal.
Where’s the BARF alert?
Murphy left the deaf school in 1974. It took them twenty-two years to bring this to the Vatican's attention, and now it's all Rome's fault?
Sounds to me like Weakland and his predecessors are the ones to blame. Weakland, of course, was a homosexual himself, who had to resign after it came out that he paid diocesan funds to a male lover. He was also a darling of the liberals, like the NY Times.
And the civil authorities fumbled the ball, too.
But hey, the Pope found out 22 years after the fact, and 4 whole years before the perp croaked.
LOL ... the agenda is so transparent.
Shoddy “journalism” from a broke rag.
"However, it was not until 1996 that Archbishop Weakland tried to have Father Murphy defrocked. The reason, he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger, was to defuse the anger among the deaf and restore their trust in the Church. He wrote that since he had become aware that “solicitation in the confessional might be part of the situation,” the case belonged at the doctrinal office..." (In 2002, Archbishop Weakland resigned after it became public that he had an affair with a man and used church money to pay him a settlement.)"
I don’t believe a word they say. Oh and by the way I am pretty certain CDF can not defrock or laicize a priest.
Other churches have folded on both fronts, the Vatican has not.
No human can claim perfection, and once disclosed, the church (as any organization would) would be concerned with scandal. While not being able to prevent events which had already happened, it could place the offender where they would no longer be able to do harm--something which civilian law enforcement seems to have had problems with of late.
I thoroughly expect any incidents which see the light of day to be distorted and amplified by the MSM, which is sympathetic to the parties who would gladly shut down the Church, and do not condone the actions of those who behaved in a criminal manner, but let's keep track of who the PSYOPS are about, and what they mean to the MSM. After all, the members of the MSM generally fit into one of the groups which are opposed by the Vatican.
What are the child molestation stats in the NY public schools? Does anyone have a comparison? These church ones were a drop in the bucket for the ocean of under reported crime.
Scratch that -- two whole years before the perp croaked.
So, let's see, the government dropped the ball (repeatedly).
The homosexual, left-wing archbishop dropped the ball (repeatedly).
The Pope, who had two years to act on a twenty-two year old case, which by then was past the church's own statute of limitations -- he's the one to blame!
Out of the three -- government, archbishop, and Pope -- which one is today a noted defender of conservative causes?
“Murphy left the deaf school in 1974. It took them twenty-two years to bring this to the Vatican’s attention, and now it’s all Rome’s fault?”
This.
Plus I want to see the letters, NY Slimes.
These sick twisted homosexuals must be thrown out of the church.
Then executed.
Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Detool Priest
(The child molesters)
You hit the nail on the head.
I guess the American bishops knew full well that these guys have no fear of burning in hell for eternity (that would involve actually *believing* the theology they espouse), so they tried the "it could embarrass the Church" scare tactic instead.
“even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church”
as if that was the main issue!
I love the Catholic pro-lifers I’ve worked with and the RCs on FR. But you know, the RC church has a serious problem with this protect-the-abuser stuff. It is really bad.
The main issue I have is not the molestation (any big group of adults, from NYC public schools to Home Depot employees, is going to have the occasional perv in them, and that is not their fault).
The main issue I have is the COVER UP. This is what disturbs me.
And I know the vast majority of Catholics don’t go along with it.
Oh really. How about the Congress of the Unites States did not run ex President Clinton out on the rail for being a rapist? I believe they kept that little secret.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.