Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Dr. Eckleburg
So let me get this straight:

1) The civil authorities were informed of the matter 1974 and declined to prosecute.

2) Nevertheless, Fr. Murphy was removed from his position and was administratively placed on an official sick leave in 1974, at which time he moved to Wisconsin to live with his mother and from which time he had no official assignment until his death in 1998.

3) A canonical trial was initiated against him in 1996 which was still ongoing at the time of his death.

4) But letter was sent in 1995 to the Secretary of State, who has no jurisdiction in the matter. This is somehow to show that there was an international conspiracy to protect and coverup the crimes of an abusing priest, the allegations of which were already known to the civil authorities.

The coverup is where exactly?

34 posted on 04/22/2010 7:20:39 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Petrosius
Your recap of the article is laughable.

From the article...

The Vatican has previously said that diocese officials and civil authorities knew about the allegations some 20 years before the Vatican was ever notified. Because of that, Lena said, it cannot be held liable for Murphy's abuse.

So says the Vatican. No one else says "civil authorities knew about the allegations."

You have more faith in the Vatican's flimsy excuses than most people do.

51 posted on 04/22/2010 7:30:54 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | 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