Posted on 03/29/2010 9:07:25 AM PDT by Pope Pius XII
Catholic League president Bill Donohue criticizes an op-ed article and a news story in the New York Times about Pope Benedict XVI's role in the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy:
In yesterday's Times, columnist Maureen Dowd said that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope, "ignored repeated warnings and looked away in the case of the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, a Wisconsin priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys." Wrong. Her own newspaper said it has no evidence that he even knew of letters that reached his office in 1996 about this matter.
Today's edition of the Times has a news story which says that Ratzinger "did not defrock a priest who molested scores of deaf boys in the United States, despite warnings by American bishops about the danger of failure to act, according to church files." Wrong. Besides the fact that there is no evidence he even knew of the case, his office actually lifted the statute of limitations—the abuse took place in the 50s and 60s—and began an investigation. Murphy died while the inquiry was proceeding.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicleague.org ...
If the Church would just do something to show she was serious abouting curbing abuse the NYT would back off. Oh wait, she has. Maybe the Church should simply embrace the progressive agenda and stop blathering on about unborn babies. That would do it.
That is the sum and substance of it. The NYT is angry because the Church opposed Obamacare on the grounds that it expanded public support for abortions. And, O yes, because it says that homosexuality is immoral.
NYT UNFAIRLY CITES POPE'S ROLE [Catholic Caucus]
The Pope and the Murphy case: what the New York Times story didn't tell you
Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy
Long Applause for New York Prelate Who Defends Pope
NYT UNFAIRLY CITES POPE'S ROLE [Catholic Caucus]
Scoundrel Time(s)
The Pope and the Murphy case: what the New York Times story didn't tell you
They already have gone around to the seminaries! Seminarians have to undergo a multitude of tests and references before being accepted now.
The lamestream media just doesn’t want to accept the fact that there were a minimum of cases last year — I think I read only six cases somewhere.
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.