The Vatican insists there was no cover-up. It has accused the media and others of an "ignoble attack" on the Pope.
Seems that FRoman Catholics got their talking points straight from the top.
Posted on 03/27/2010 3:29:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
What must it feel like to have lost 50 years of your life? For that is what 61-year old Arthur Budzinski has endured.
Five long decades of personal pain.
And he has to rely on others to speak of his anguish.
It is made worse by the fact that no-one has been held to account for the sexual abuse he says he suffered as a child while at the Roman Catholic St John's School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin.
Arthur and around 200 other boys are said to have been sexually abused at the school by Father Lawrence Murphy, a Catholic priest.
He says he and others told members of the clergy back then that they were being watched, touched and exploited by Fr Murphy.
No-one listened.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
The Vatican insists there was no cover-up. It has accused the media and others of an "ignoble attack" on the Pope.
Seems that FRoman Catholics got their talking points straight from the top.
Thanks. My post and that link bring the pain of the victims to the forefront of this discussion.
The Pope and the Murphy case: what the New York Times story didn’t tell you
By Phil Lawler | March 25, 2010 2:55 PM
Today’s front-page story in the New York Times suggests that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), under the direction of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, failed to act against a Wisconsin priest who was accused of molesting scores of boys at a school for the deaf.
Is the story damaging? Yes. Should the Vatican have acted faster? Yes. Should the accused priest have been laicized? In all probability, Yes again.
Nevertheless, before assigning all blame to the Vatican, consider these factors:
1. The allegations of abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy began in 1955 and continued in 1974, according to the Times account. The Vatican was first notified in 1996: 40 years after Church officials in Wisconsin were first made aware of the problem. Local Church leaders could have taken action in the 1950s. They didn’t.
2. The Vatican, following the standard procedures required by canon law, kept its own inquiries confidential. But the CDF never barred other investigations. Local Church officials could have given police all the information they had about the allegations against Murphy. Indeed they could have informed police 40 years earlier. They didn’t.
3. Milwaukee’s Archbishop Cousins could have suspended Father Murphy from priestly ministry in 1974, when he was evidently convinced that the priest was guilty of gross misconduct. He didn’t. Instead he transferred the predator priest to a new diocese, allowing him to continue pastoral work giving him access to other innocent young people. And as if that weren’t enough, later Archbishop Weakland made sure that there was no “paper trail.” There was certainly a cover-up in this case. It was in Milwaukee, not in Rome.
4. Having called the Vatican’s attention to Murphy’s case, Archbishop Weakland apparently wanted an immediate response, and was unhappy that the CDF took 8 months to respond. But again, the Milwaukee archdiocese had waited decades to take this action. Because the Milwaukee archdiocese had waited so long to take action, the canonical statute of limitations had become an important factor in the Vatican’s decision to advise against an ecclesiastical trial.
5. In a plea for mercy addressed to Cardinal Ratzinger, Father Murphy said that he had repented his misdeeds, was guilty of no recent misconduct, and was in failing health. Earlier this month Msgr. Charles Scicluna, the chief Vatican prosecutor in sex-abuse cases, explained that in many cases involving elderly or ailing priests, the CDF chooses to forego a full canonical trial, instead ordering the priest to remove himself from public ministry and devote his remaining days to penance and prayer. This was, in effect, the final result of the Vatican’s inquiry in this case; Father Murphy died just months later.
6. The correspondence makes it clear that Archbishop Weakland took action not because he wanted to protect the public from an abusive priest, but because he wanted to avoid the huge public outcry that he predicted would emerge if Murphy was not disciplined. In 1996, when the archbishop made that prediction, the public outcry would—and should—have been focused on the Milwaukee archdiocese, if it had materialized. Now, 14 years later, a much more intense public outcry is focused on the Vatican. The anger is justifiable, but it is misdirected.
This is a story about the abject failure of the Milwaukee archdiocese to discipline a dangerous priest, and the tardy effort by Archbishop Weakland—who would soon become the subject of a major scandal himself—to shift responsibility to Rome.
whatever
St. John's basketball team, in the 1960's. Of 11 boys on the team, at least five say they were victims of Father Murphy (at left).
Gamecock, I do not direct this toward you, as the issue is newsworthy and relevant - and merits discussion.
However, it’s just that (man alive), we get it already. This story, or variations thereof, have been posted in multiplicity on FR. But for what does it accomplish?
The Catholic Church and its leadership, like mankind, is no doubt flawed - and segments of its history are insidious shameful, and unsavory.
I would love to see any media coverage of positive aspects on the Catholic Church; moreover, the Catholic Church has been at the forefront of fight and cause for the sanctity of human life - while other denominations have been relatively silent or otherwise embrace abortion (i.e. the Methodist Church / National Council of Churches hierarchy).
A Budzinski family photograph shows the young Arthur (circled left) attending a funeral with Fr Murphy (right)
1-9-9-89
The Pope was following the confidential orders of the Crimen Sollicitationis to hide the facts, support the priest and deny. The Vatican is still doing that.
So even the BBC is now looking for 50 year old stories to dig up in WISCONSIN?! What a sign of desperation on the part of the left. The anti-Catholics here will cheer their efforts of course.
In reality what Crimen Sollicitationis did was institute a system by which ordinaries were to follow canon law. These were the canon laws that applied at the time:
Canon 904. In accordance with the apostolic constitutions, in particular the constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV of 1 June 1741, a penitent must within one month denounce to the local Ordinary or the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office a priest guilty of the crime of solicitation in confession; and a confessor must, under a grave obligation of conscience, inform a penitent of this duty.
Canon 2368 §1. Anyone who has committed the crime of solicitation dealt with in canon 904 is to be suspended from celebrating Mass and hearing sacramental confessions and, if the gravity of the crime calls for it, he is to be declared unfit for hearing them; he is to be deprived of all benefices and ranks, of the right to vote or be voted for, and is to be declared unfit for all of them, and in more serious cases he is to be reduced to the lay state.
Everyone involved in the case was expected to keep the strictest confidence about the case and its facts, “excepting only what may happen to be lawfully published when this process is concluded and put into effect”. Even the flamming liberal John Allen understands this better than the average (and not too bright) anti-Catholic here at FR.
It’s a Gamecock post, dude. Some people wallow in hatred and ignorance; there is nothing to do put pray for them.
The blame works its way back to Rome because the RCC is a hierarchy. Ultimate responsibility rests at the top. The key issue is why didn't the leaders of this hierarchy demand that any incident, or allegation must be immediately reported to the authorities.
Instead, a pattern of keeping the issue internal and minimizing the damage to the church's reputation is what was attempted.
If the government used the justification that children were being harmed to attack the Branch Davidians, and I believe the same justification was used against the Mormons in Texas, then what's stopping the government from shutting down Romanist pedophile camps?
Now I'm not suggesting that the government has the right to do this, in fact, I believe it was wrong in the earlier cases. But the precedence is in place that will allow the Secularists to attempt to dismantle private Christian societies under the pretense that these Christian societies harm children and will point to the widespread abuse of children by Romanist clergy. The Romanists leaderships complicity in allowing this abuse to occur is giving the Secularists a foot in the door to tyrannize Christians of all denominations.
It's unbelievable enough that Romanists would send their children to these pedophile camps but now their deluded actions are cause for concern for all Christians.
That's pure hatred talking.
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.