All right, people, you've been bad and have all forfeited your Easter candy for this year; just send it my way.
Posted on 03/28/2010 6:25:56 AM PDT by Cardhu
Yup, we need a Nope.
A nun who is pope.
The Catholic Church can never recover as long as its Holy Shepherd is seen as a black sheep in the ever-darkening sex abuse scandal.
Now we learn the sickening news that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, nicknamed “God’s Rottweiler” when he was the church’s enforcer on matters of faith and sin, ignored repeated warnings and looked away in the case of the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, a Wisconsin priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys.
The church has been tone deaf and dumb on the scandal for so long that it’s shocking, but not surprising, to learn from The Times’s Laurie Goodstein that a group of deaf former students spent 30 years trying to get church leaders to pay attention.
“Victims give similar accounts of Father Murphy’s pulling down their pants and touching them in his office, his car, his mother’s country house, on class excursions and fund-raising trips and in their dormitory beds at night,” Goodstein wrote. “Arthur Budzinski said he was first molested when he went to Father Murphy for confession when he was about 12, in 1960.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The Pope and the Murphy case: what the New York Times story didn't tell you
Pat gives up the history:
Is Satan a Catholic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE
The Times and ten thousand newspapers around the world told everything except the pathetic and shameless justification for the Vatican’s indifference to pedophilia against Catholic children knowing it could easily silence them and their parents.
They were right; they know how to manipulate their flock.
The apologia does not deny anything nor does it add anything except nonsense, the whole idea is to protect the Vatican and blame everything on Milwaukee.
The apologia begins:
“…Ratzinger, failed to act against a Wisconsin priest who was accused of molesting scores (scores = 200) 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.
Obviously, it was not 40 years after the officials in Wisconsin knew about it unless the local church officials set up a camera and sold weekly tickets to watch Murphy molest the handicapped boys over and over for 21 years. If we are to believe the apologia then the horror is far, far worse than anyone could imagine.
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
“The Vatican was first notified in 1996 and Archbishop Weakland apparently wanted an immediate response, and was unhappy that the CDF took 8 months to respond.”
Times: “In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee’s archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican’s secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial.”
Tell me Salvation, if I wrote a letter, two letters, to you and told you that one of your employees had sexually assaulted 200 handicapped children would you take 8 months to contact me? Would anyone with half a brain take 8 months to reply? Would 99.99 recurring% of the world’s population have a cause to be “unhappy,”
Can any Catholic tell me why there is so much indiffernece by the leaders of their church to abuse of Catholic children and why it does not horrify them as it does other people?
So Salvation, what didn’t the Times tell you?
All right, people, you've been bad and have all forfeited your Easter candy for this year; just send it my way.
Tell me, Cardhu, do you understand that Murphy wasn't employed by the CDF in Rome, but was employed by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee?
So no, you aren't writing two letters to Salvation about one of her employees, but about one of your own. I'd say that makes a bit of a difference.
Do you further understand that, under canon law as it existed at the time, Milwaukee did not need Rome's permission to conduct a canonical trial against Murphy?
Do you further understand that Milwaukee sat on the case without informing Rome for nineteen years, 17 of which were under the aegis of the liberal darling homosexual Archbishop Rembert Weakland, a man who has admitted shredding files on molestation cases, and who is a pal of the NY Times reporterette who wrote the story?
That and other fascinating details are here.
Until 1996 he was following the 1922/1962 letter Crimen Sollicitationis which every bishop and cardinal followed in every country, that was to keep everything secret even swear the victims to secrecy. Ratzinger himself followed the same procedure in Germany, just moved priests around and not alert the authorities. Protect the Church at all costs.
When it was just pedophilia, pederasty, and rape with real victims, just follow the 1922/1962 ruling, shut them up, pay them off. But when the situation was getting out of hand and solicitation in the confessional became part of the situation he most certainly had his excuse to report to Rome.
However, it was not until 1996 that Archbishop Weakland tried to have Father Murphy defrocked. The reason, he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger, was to defuse the anger among the deaf and restore their trust in the Church. He wrote that since he had become aware that “solicitation in the confessional might be part of the situation,” the case belonged at the doctrinal office..
He had followed the Canon Law to perfection until things were getting so hot as to be ready to explode and the solicitation in the confessional was the last straw, he was compelled to inform his superiors that the cover up was not working.
He was right of course, as the Church has now paid out nearly 2.7 billion in America alone.
The pope, meanwhile, continues to be under fire for a 2001 Vatican letter he sent to all bishops advising them that all cases of sexual abuse of minors must be forwarded to his then-office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that the cases were to be subject to pontifical secret.
Germany's justice minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, has cited the document as evidence that the Vatican created a "wall of silence" around abuse cases that prevented prosecution.
Irish bishops have said the document had been "widely misunderstood" by the bishops themselves to mean they shouldn't go to police. And lawyers for abuse victims in the United States have cited the document in arguing that the Catholic Church tried to obstruct justice.
It seems the whole world misunderstands. Campion has told me it is the fault of some New York times reporterette.
Go read "Goodbye Good Men" to understand the full story. But to blame Ratzinger or "the" Church is simply ignorant.
The lord of this world is busy this Easter season.
Go read the timeline of this NYT article and the others involved.
Sheesh - not Catholic on this forum or anywhere else condones what homosexual priests have done NOR the actions of numerous other religions where the same thing happened. But to imply this is a coverup, a purposeful coverup by the then Cardinal Ratzinger..now the Pope...is utter bullshit and without base!
“Miss Dowd, I don’t know how often your nuns beat you, but it clearly wasn’t often enough.”
The lord of this world is busy this Easter season.
I hear ya.
A Response to the New York Times [Father Raymond J. de Souza]
The New York Times on March 25 accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, of intervening to prevent a priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, from facing penalties for cases of sexual abuse of minors.
The story is false. It is unsupported by its own documentation. Indeed, it gives every indication of being part of a coordinated campaign against Pope Benedict, rather than responsible journalism.
Before addressing the false substance of the story, the following circumstances are worthy of note:
• The New York Times story had two sources. First, lawyers who currently have a civil suit pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Anderson, also has cases in the United States Supreme Court pending against the Holy See. He has a direct financial interest in the matter being reported.
• The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his clandestine lover. He is prima facie not a reliable source.
• Laurie Goodstein, the author of the New York Times story, has a recent history with Archbishop Weakland. Last year, upon the release of the disgraced archbishop’s autobiography, she wrote an unusually sympathetic story that buried all the most serious allegations against him (New York Times, May 14, 2009).
• A demonstration took place in Rome on Friday, coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting.
It’s possible that bad sources could still provide the truth. But compromised sources scream out for greater scrutiny. Instead of greater scrutiny of the original story, however, news editors the world over simply parroted the New York Times piece. Which leads us the more fundamental problem: The story is not true, according to its own documentation.
The New York Times made available on its own website the supporting documentation for the story. In those documents, Cardinal Ratzinger himself does not take any of the decisions that allegedly frustrated the trial. Letters are addressed to him; responses come from his deputy. Even leaving that aside, though, the gravamen of the charge — that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office impeded some investigation — is proven utterly false.
The documents show that the canonical trial or penal process against Father Murphy was never stopped by anyone. In fact, it was only abandoned days before Father Murphy died. Cardinal Ratzinger never took a decision in the case, according to the documents. His deputy, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, suggested, given that Father Murphy was in failing health and a canonical trial is a complicated matter, that more expeditious means be used to remove him from all ministry.
To repeat: The charge that Cardinal Ratzinger did anything wrong is unsupported by the documentation on which the story was based. He does not appear in the record as taking any decision. His office, in the person of his deputy, Archbishop Bertone, agreed that there should be full canonical trial. When it became apparent that Father Murphy was in failing health, Archbishop Bertone suggested more expeditious means of removing him from any ministry.
Furthermore, under canon law at the time, the principal responsibility for sexual-abuse cases lay with the local bishop. Archbishop Weakland had from 1977 onwards the responsibility of administering penalties to Father Murphy. He did nothing until 1996. It was at that point that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office became involved, and it subsequently did nothing to impede the local process.
The New York Times flatly got the story wrong, according to its own evidence. Readers may want to speculate on why.
Here is the relevant timeline, drawn from the documents the New York Times posted on its own website.
15 May 1974
Abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy is alleged by a former student at St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. In fact, accusations against Father Murphy go back more than a decade.
12 September 1974
Father Murphy is granted an official “temporary sick leave” from St. John’s School for the Deaf. He leaves Milwaukee and moves to northern Wisconsin, in the Diocese of Superior, where he lives in a family home with his mother. He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998. He does not return to live in Milwaukee. No canonical penalties are pursued against him.
9 July 1980
Officials in the Diocese of Superior write to officials in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee about what ministry Father Murphy might undertake in Superior. Archbishop Rembert Weakland, archbishop of Milwaukee since 1977, has been consulted and says it would be unwise to have Father Murphy return to ministry with the deaf community. There is no indication that Archbishop Weakland foresees any other measures to be taken in the case.
17 July 1996
More than 20 years after the original abuse allegations, Archbishop Weakland writes to Cardinal Ratzinger, claiming that he has only just discovered that Father Murphy’s sexual abuse involved the sacrament of confession — a still more serious canonical crime. The allegations about the abuse of the sacrament of confession were in the original 1974 allegations. Weakland has been archbishop of Milwaukee by this point for 19 years.
It should be noted that for sexual-abuse charges, Archbishop Weakland could have proceeded against Father Murphy at any time. The matter of solicitation in the sacrament of confession required notifying Rome, but that too could have been done as early as the 1970s.
10 September 1996
Father Murphy is notified that a canonical trial will proceed against him. Until 2001, the local bishop had authority to proceed in such trials. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is now beginning the trial. It is noteworthy that at this point, no reply has been received from Rome indicating that Archbishop Weakland knew he had that authority to proceed.
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.
14 May 1997
Archbishop Weakland writes to Archbishop Bertone to say that the penal process against Father Murphy has been launched, and notes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has advised him to proceed even though the statute of limitations has expired. In fact, there is no statute of limitations for solicitation in the sacrament of confession.
Throughout the rest of 1997 the preparatory phases of penal process or canonical trial is underway. On 5 January 1998 the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee says that an expedited trial should be concluded within a few months.
12 January 1998
Father Murphy, now less than eight months away from his death, appeals to Cardinal Ratzinger that, given his frail health, he be allowed to live out his days in peace.
6 April 1998
Archbishop Bertone, noting the frail health of Father Murphy and that there have been no new charges in almost 25 years, recommends using pastoral measures to ensure Father Murphy has no ministry, but without the full burden of a penal process. It is only a suggestion, as the local bishop retains control.
13 May 1998
The Bishop of Superior, where the process has been transferred to and where Father Murphy has lived since 1974, rejects the suggestion for pastoral measures. Formal pre-trial proceedings begin on 15 May 1998, continuing the process already begun with the notification that had been issued in September 1996.
30 May 1998
Archbishop Weakland, who is in Rome, meets with officials at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, including Archbishop Bertone but not including Cardinal Ratzinger, to discuss the case. The penal process is ongoing. No decision taken to stop it, but given the difficulties of a trial after 25 years, other options are explored that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry.
19 August 1998
Archbishop Weakland writes that he has halted the canonical trial and penal process against Father Murphy and has immediately begun the process to remove him from ministry — a quicker option.
21 August 1998
Father Murphy dies. His family defies the orders of Archbishop Weakland for a discreet funeral
— Father Raymond J. de Souza is a chaplain at Queen’s University in Ontario.
Wow - I only knew about Pope Joan and the “interesting” chair. Didn’t know about the pregnancy and birth and stoning - that’s a definite WOW!
Thanks - I learned something today.
A very good and descriptive article. Many thanks.
Thanks - I learned something today.
May I ask what you learned?
Actually, I have a picture of two Roman toilets that I took in Malta, which I suspect is what they have found in the Vatican. They have a large keyhole type opening with the larger opening about 1 foot in diameter and the lower part of the keyhole 8 inches by 4
When things go terrible wrong - Cherche la femme
Notice that the Church hierarchy does not admit women. Pope Joan is an interesting fairy story, if one is looking to further tarnish the Church’s reputation, but a fairy story still.
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.