Here is the paper trail. The evidence is clear that Father Murphy was guilty-even Father Murphy's states it to be so. As the paper trail shows, Archbishop Weakland in the Roman Catholic Church was desperately trying to get this man convicted-not legally because the statues of limitations had exceeded. Rather removed from the priesthood for the betterment of the Church. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was contacted about this matter in July of 1996. Ratzinger chose not to respond (twice). Pleads went out to the Vatican. They were ignored because of the "scandal" and "time lapse"-even though there was no doubt about Father Murphy's guilt. Two years later Father Murphy died. Case close. Father Murphy was given a full funeral accorded one of a priest.
Archbishop Weakland falls into obscurity. Ratzinger is promoted. Sounds typically bureaucratic.
You wrote:
“Here is the paper trail.”
I already posted a full timeline.
“The evidence is clear that Father Murphy was guilty-even Father Murphy’s states it to be so.”
And who said otherwise?
“As the paper trail shows, Archbishop Weakland in the Roman Catholic Church was desperately trying to get this man convicted-not legally because the statues of limitations had exceeded.”
Until Weakland changed his mind. Did you remember that detail? Do you remember why he changed his plan?
“Rather removed from the priesthood for the betterment of the Church.”
He had ceased working as a priest almost 30 years PREVIOUS to his death.
“Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was contacted about this matter in July of 1996.”
Actually, his OFFICE was contacted and that was only two years before the priest’s death.
“Ratzinger chose not to respond (twice). Pleads went out to the Vatican.”
Weakland could have proceeded against Murphy at any time. No answer from the Vatican was necessary. The Bishop had a tribunal. He began a trial when he felt prepared. No permission from the Vatican was necessary. He knew this - that’s why he began the trial ON HIS OWN. Also, you’re posting a terrible falsehood. Anyone who looks into this matter would know the following:
17 July 1996: Archbishop Weakland wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger about the case.
24 March 1997: Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, advises a canonical trial against Father Murphy. (which had already begun).
Thus, there was an 8 month span of time between Weakland’s letter and the response from Ratzinger’s office. Thus, when the MSM says there was no response, that is an outright lie.
“They were ignored because of the “scandal” and “time lapse”-even though there was no doubt about Father Murphy’s guilt.”
How is a response from Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone advising a trial the same thing as being ignored? Can you explain that to me?
“Two years later Father Murphy died. Case close. Father Murphy was given a full funeral accorded one of a priest.”
Against Archbishop Weakland’s request. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2481315/posts
“Archbishop Weakland falls into obscurity.”
Actually, no. Weakland is drummed out of the active ministry by his own scandalous behavior coming into public view.
“Ratzinger is promoted.”
No, he wasn’t. He was elected Pope. If anyone “promoted” him, it was God.
“Sounds typically bureaucratic.”
Sounds providential. Not only did he do what he was supposed do according to the policies of the Church, he has been a wonderful pope and I thank God for him!
By the way, canon lawyer priest, Fr. Tom Brundage, whose letter your link opens up to? He said Mass for the repose of my father’s soul when he passed away. Small world.