Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers

The accusations were made 20-30 years after the alleged abuse.

And though defrocking would have been the appropriate response when it would have actually meant the priest would have no further exposure to children. It would not have done so at the time of the letter to the Vatican. And if the accusations had been recent, yes he the Vatican should have taken steps to defrock him.

And nothing that happened prevented either civil or diocesian authorities from investigating, charging and trying Murphy. I agree both should have. I do not know why the civil authorities declined such action. But believe the Diocese did so in a very misdirected desire to protect the Church. Which was wrong, is wrong and always will be wrong.

So yes there is plenty of fault to be found here. But it is not with the Vatican for declining to initiate a canonical trial 40 years after the violations occured and 20 years after any other investigation into the matter.


94 posted on 03/25/2010 9:18:48 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: lastchance

Fair enough.


97 posted on 03/25/2010 9:39:32 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson