Replies

You are correct, Ratzinger had NOTHING to do with bringing serial pedophile Father Lawrence Murphy to justice. Neither did Cardinal Bertone who got his secret canonical trial stopped because hey, he was sorry for raping all those boys.

I'm curious how many boys in this photo were raped by Murphy, facing you back left. The guy your beloved Pope let walk...

Maybe someone in the group behind the Vatican Leaks was molested since Bertone was a target.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14526

Or maybe a group - in a POLITICAL MANEUVER - was trying to keep him from being the next Pope since he was a frontrunner.

It takes almost full-time work to refute the false slanders against Pope Benedict --- and even to “re-refute” them, since so many of them were exposed as false years ago. But don’t expect retractions from the New York Times and equivalent character-assassins here and elsewhere. Anybody with an interest in the truth is invited to read Raymond J. de Souza's article at National Review: A Response to the New York Times [Pope falsely accused]

The principal responsibility for the Lawrence Miller sexual-abuse case lay with the disgustingly negligent local Ordinary, Archbishop Rembert Weakland. Leaving the accused abuser priest supposedly "without assignment," and likewise without supervision from 1977 until 1996, and neglecting any effort to discover the scope of his abuses or to minister to his victims, Weakland essentially did nothing.

It was not until 1996 (19 years after Fr. Murphy was put out of circulation on "sick leave") that Weakland first notified Cardinal Ratzinger’s Vatican office, which promptly moved forward on having a canonical trial. Neither Ratzinger nor anyone in his office in any way impeded the local process. In fact, Card. Ratzinger’s Deputy, Cardinal Narciso Bertone, tried in every way to expedite the process, despite the huge gap created by Abp Weakland's negligence and the statute of limitations.

Fr. Murphy died in 1998, before a canonical trial could take place.

The real fault here, as I read the facts, was with the appalling Archbishop Weakland, who was notoriously derelict in his duties.

But because the Associated Press, the New York Times, and the MSM in general cannot lodge fault with Weakland ---who, as a “progressive,” a payoff-paying gay prelate himself, and a longtime enabler/protector of defiant anti-papal dissenters, was immune from all criticism --- there was a concerted, international effort to find some way to drag in Pope Benedict.

What the New York Times was churning out 2 1/2 years ago --- and repeated here by certain parties --- was vicious, prejudicial, and (it seems to me) probably legally libelous. The “Queen of Slander” herself in this game was Maureen Dowd, whose comments were echoed by well-known individuals disgracing the opinion-forums.

However, there may be lurkers still reading: it is for your sake, lurkers, that I offer the true account of the case.

The pope did not let him walk. One of my best friends did a major investigation into the case, spoke to the prosecutor at length, knows the records, etc. He never found anything to suggest the Pope Benedict did anything wrong. You’re operating from a place of ignorance on this matter. I’m not.