Welcome readers of The Anchoress and Andrew Sullivan.
See also: EVIL MONSTER UPDATE: THE INSIDE STORY.
The level of vitriol being directed at Pope Benedict by the mainstream media right now is truly extraordinary. It’s primarily drive by desire for cash (scandal sells), followed closely by hatred, along with a hefty dose of ignorance.
Reading Maureen Dowd’s latest opinion column is just a cringe-inducing experience.
Even in ostensible news pieces the misrepresentation of facts is staggering. That’s where the ignorance comes in. Reporters in the mainstream media are seldom well versed in the matters they are reporting on, and it is clear that—even when outright malice is excluded from the equation—they simply do not have the background to properly understand or report on how the Vatican works and what its actions mean.
I am not saying that the Holy See’s handling of abuse cases can’t be legitimately criticized. I’m not saying that then-Cardinal Ratzinger/now-Pope Benedict XVI didn’t experience a learning curve on this point. And I don’t know what else is out there that remains to be discovered.
But I am saying that the media is getting this story wrong, particularly in the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy, the American priest whose case was dealt with by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith when Cardinal Ratzinger was its head.
The New York Times has done a great service to those wanting to look into this story by putting online a large number of primary source documents pertaining to the case. No doubt they mean these to incriminate Pope Benedict, but if you read them carefully—and if you know the relevant background—they don’t. (The documents are also posted here in .pdf format.)
So let’s look at the facts of the case in light of the documents:
Lawrence Murphy was born in 1925 and was ordained a priest in 1950. He served at St. John’s School for the Deaf from 1963 to 1974, during which time he later admitted to having abused 19 boys (press reports are saying as many as 200, but there is speculation involved there).
In the mid 1970s his victims complained to the police, but this did not result in a trial.
Note well: This is not a case of the diocese preventing the police from knowing about it. They already knew.
His victims also hung “most wanted” posters of him outside Milwaukee’s cathedral to urge Church authorities to deal with the situation. According to a document from the 1990s produced in preparation for a Church trial, virtually no documentation was available on the details of what the Milwaukee archdiocese did regarding the case back in the 1970s, but the result is known in broad brush.
Murphy was removed from the school for the deaf and given no further pastoral assignment. He moved back to his family residence, where he lived with his mother. Except for occasional visits to his brother in Houston, he lived in this house for the rest of his life.
He was never granted a pastoral assignment by the diocese of Superior, in which he was now living, but he occasionally said Mass at parishes and was used in some capacity at retreats for deaf people, due to his ability to communicate in sign language.
There were no further allegations of sexual abuse against him.
In 1995, some of Murphy’s victims and their lawyers contacted the now-archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland (ironic, yes, but that’s a different issue), reporting Murphy’s actions from the 1970s.
In December of 1995, Weakland ordered a preliminary investigation to determine whether the allegations had merit. It was concluded that they did.
However, because the charges against Murphy included the abuse of the sacrament of confession—an offense that was (and is) reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—Weakland wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger in July 1996 asking for guidance in how to proceed.
Note this well: Back in 1996 the CDF did not have a mandate to handle cases of sexual abuse by priests. It does now. It received that mandate later. But in 1996 it did not have one. The reason that Weakland notified the CDF was not because the abuse of minors was involved but because the abuse of the sacrament of confession was involved.
Weakland had not received a reply by October of 1996, and he began preparations for a canonical trial of Murphy.
In February 1997 Murphy raised the point that his crimes were committed before the 1983 Code of Canon Law was issued and that under the legal norms in force at the time, the statute of limitations had run out.
This caused Weakland to contact the Holy See with a request that the statute of limitations be waived so that the trial could proceed. He sent the request in March 1997 to the Apostolic Signatura, noting that he hadn’t heard from the CDF.
Since the case involved offenses reserved to the CDF, the Signatura promptly forwarded the request there, and within two weeks Weakland had a reply from the CDF.
The reply came from the secretary of the congregation, (now Cardinal) Tarcisio Bertone.
Here are two important points:
1) The delay in response. Weakland first wrote to the CDF in July 1996. He got his reply (after a further prompting) in March 1997—nine months later.
If you want to criticize, here is a possible thing to criticize. The CDF could have gotten back to him in a more timely manner. On the other hand, the CDF does not have a huge staff but it does have a huge mission as the Church’s theological quality control department. I think this one is debatable.
2) Note that the reply came from Bertone, not Ratzinger. This is actually what you would expect. The way these dicasteries work, while the Cardinal Prefect (Ratzinger, in this case) is in charge, it is the Secretary (Bertone) who is the actual “show-runner”—the one who oversees the day-to-day functioning of the department. So while you would write to Ratzinger as a matter of protocol, you would expect him to hand the matter off to Bertone and to hear back from the latter. Indeed, after deference to Ratzinger has been paid by writing the first letter to him, Weakland and Bishop Fliss of Superior correspond directly with Bertone.
This creates a situation where we don’t really know what Ratzinger’s involvement was. In the documentation presented by the New York Times Ratzinger never replies. It’s always Bertone who does so. Bertone (not Ratzinger) even chairs a meeting at the Vatican on the matter.
Did Cardinal Ratzinger even see the initial letter regarding Murphy? Maybe. Or maybe it was given to Bertone as part of his role as show-runner. Maybe the mail room at the CDF automatically gives correspondence addressed to the Cardinal Prefect to the Secretary, who serves as his filter. I don’t know. (Maybe someone who knows such things can clarify in the combox. Please cite sources.)
Incidentally, note that in his statement, press spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi carefully and repeatedly talks about what “the Congregation” did regarding the Murphy case, not what Cardinal Ratzinger did.
Guess why.
So we don’t know if Ratzinger saw the letter, or if he was told about it, or what if anything he did.
That’s important to how we evaluate the story. Criticize the way these departments are run if you want, but we don’t have evidence that Ratzinger did anything in bad conscience.
He’s also been the leading change-agent pressing for tougher measures against abusive priests for nearly ten years.
So what did Bertone say in his reply to Weakland’s request for a waiver of the statute of limitations? He said for Weakland to continue the judicial process against Murphy, thus waiving the statute of limitations, while asking him to pay attention to certain prior norms that must be read in light of current law.
In other words, Bertone said, “Go ahead. Prosecute.”
Scarcely anything to fault Ratzinger for here.
So things proceed with the potential canonical trial of Murphy until January 1998 (by which time the case had been transferred to the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, in whose territory Murphy was residing). In this month, Murphy writes his own letter to the CDF.
As you’d expect, he addresses it to Cardinal Ratzinger, and as as you’d expect, Bishop Fliss of Superior (now handling the case) gets a reply from Bertone.
This is the crux letter—where people in the press want to find fault with Cardinal Ratzinger.
There are, again, a number of important things to note:
1) The text of the Murphy letter itself. Mainstream media sources will quote only a sound bite or two (at best; some flat-out misrepresent it), but thanks to the Internet and the NYT’s putting the document online, you can read it for yourself and make your own judgments.
2) In the letter, Murphy asks the CDF to declare the action of the diocese of Superior (to whom the case has been transferred) invalid because the statute to limitations when the crimes were committed has passed. The CDF refuses to do so in Bertone’s reply and suggests that the case be handled in another way (more on that in a moment). The point is: The CDF refuses to invalidate the pending action of the diocese of Superior against Murphy. No ground of faulting Ratzinger there.
3) Murphy also makes a mercy-based request to the CDF not to be subjected to a trial at this point in his life. He writes:
I am seventy-two years of age, your Eminence [Cardinal Ratzinger], and I am in poor health. I have just recently suffered another stroke which has left me in a weakened state. I have followed all the directives of both Archbishop Cousins and now Archbishop Weakland. I have repented of any of my past transgressions, and have been living peaceably in northern Wisconsin for twenty-four years. I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood.
So when the response came from Archbishop Bertone, what did it say?
It did not prohibit a canonical trial. It didn’t say that this couldn’t be done. But it did hint at another path, saying:
[T]his Congregation invites Your Excellency [Raphael Michael Fliss of Superior, WI] to give careful consideration to what canon 1341 proposes as pastoral measures destined to obtain the reparation of scandal and the restoration of justice.
Canon 1341 provides that:
An ordinary is to take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender.
So Bertone urges the relevant ordinary (now Fliss due to the change of diocese in which the trial would occur) to heed what the Code of Canon Law says regarding when to use a judicial process. Criticize the Code if you want, but we don’t have evidence of wrongdoing on Ratzinger’s part.
Note that Bertone doesn’t say Fliss can’t or shouldn’t go forward with the trial. He just says think about this canon and if there is another way to resolve the matter.
In May Fliss concluded that the scandal in the deaf community was such that the trial needed to go forward.
At the very end of the same month, he and Weakland were in Rome for their ad limina visit, and they had a meeting with Bertone about the Murphy case. Ratzinger was not present.
Bertone again did not say that the trial could not proceed. He pointed out certain canonical and practical difficulties it would involve, but he did not prohibit it. He further recommended that Murphy be examined by three psychiatrists, that he be assigned a spiritual director to keep tabs on him, that he be prohibited from doing anything with the deaf community, and that he be allowed to celebrate Mass only with permission given in writing by both Weakland and Fliss.
This seems to be the last action the CDF took on the matter—except for forwarding the minutes of the meeting a few weeks later (July 1998).
The next month, August 1998, Murphy died.
He really was in poor health.
Murphy had written his letter of appeal—the crux letter that the media is up in arms about—in January of 1998 and in August of 1998 he was dead.
One can fault any number of things about process or policy in this case, but we don’t have evidence that Ratzinger did anything in bad conscience. He didn’t stop the trial against Murphy from proceeding. At most (attributing everything to him that Bertone did) he recommended waiving the judicial proceeding due to the man’s advanced age and ill health while simultaneously taking steps to ensure that the man would not be a threat to anyone as he lived out his final months in seclusion.
Civil prosecutors make these kinds of judgments all the time, deciding whether it is really worth it to devote the resources to proceed to a full trial when the accused is elderly, not a threat, and likely to die during the proceedings.
They aren’t portrayed in the press as evil monsters, and from the facts of this case, Pope Benedict shouldn’t either.
Your thoughts?
See also: EVIL MONSTER UPDATE: THE INSIDE STORY.
Comments
Post a Comment
No one can make things clear like you Jimmy. Thanks for disecting this for the rest of us.
I knew in my heart His Holiness was innocent of any wrondoing. If anyone should be especially criticized, it is the CDF for not acting quickly enough.
Thank You, Mr. Akin, for defend our Pope in this difficult time of the History of the Church with this marvelous article.
The public is angry that the church knew that an admitted child rapist was not turned over to the civil authorities. The ENTIRE time, during this scandal, the church has been bringing this down on itself because it has made it a matter of unwritten policy to protect other priests by “dealing with it quietly”. No priest who admitted to raping 19 boys should be allowed to “quietly live out their days”. They should be in prison. That’s the scandal. And until we start to wake up and address that, its going to keep happening.
Why does the church not turn these matters over to the police? WHY? Please give me some answer to that that makes a modicum of sense.
Fr Brundage’s account is very interesting, and adds to the notion that wherever the fault lies, it is not with His Holiness:
http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601
Thank you so much for spelling all of this out. I am entering the Church this Easter (4 days!) and it has been truly heartbreaking to read the recent headlines and to feel like there is almost nothing in print that is accurate regarding this situation.
I really appreciate how clearly you write and well you spelled everything out.
Perhaps this issue should also be looked at from a much wider perspective, something which too many of today’s mass media are unwilling to do because of their sometimes not so hidden agenda of hate against Catholicism.
There is no question that this kind of sexual immoral conduct against minors is evil from the point of view of Catholicism, and currently at least from our secular social framework. But the vast majority of this abuse has been directed against adolescent boys by older men so this is what specifically should be commented on.
This kind of sexual conduct has not always been considered an abuse in the history of our civilisation. It was Christianity following Judaism that first condemned any sexual conduct between males.
Indeed the idea of boy-love with adult men accompanied with corellative sexual expression was considered virtuous conduct throughout ancient Greece at least. This is particularly interesting because it was looked at even by Socrates as the best way to teach young males to become virtuous adult men. God forbid that young males should first get involved with the weaker sex, the irrascible, emotional, woman, and end up emulating their vices. This boy-love at that time was no more abusive than forcing teenagers today to do their homework. Boy-love considered as an abuse is culturally/morally determined. Give it time, and this boy-love will no longer be considered an abuse in our increasingly morally relativistic society.
The point is that Church haters will use any means to injure the Church. In 50 years from now when boy-love will again be considered a normal part of any adolescent’s social education, will these Church haters still be condemning the Church for the same reasons as today, or rather will they then not be condeming the Church for not allowed boy-love among the clergy? Whatever conduct, even disciplinary, that is considered abusive today will be used against the Church should such conduct be found within the Church even at levels that are miniscule in comparison with levels found in the rest of society. Wider questions as to why certrain conduct is considered abusive will not be asked because the answers will entail exposing ideology as the foundation to the answers. Indeed, the fact that this sort of boy-love is an abomination in the eyes of the Church while such conduct is prized by large sectors of homosexuality will simply not be discussed because of its expository power. The target is the Church because the Church is still, despite its failures, the only bulwark left against immorality in the World, a morality that goes against the spirit of the times.
Of course there is a way for the Church to turn all this evil into a good. The Chuch must never aquiesce to the spirit of the times. It must purify itself from those few filthy apples who are truly a scandal. With the help of all those many who are clean in spirit the traditional Godly morality of the Chruch must be rejuvinated and restored everywhere. The spirit of the times has always been against the Church, and so the World will always hate the Church; we can thank the haters for helping exposing the hidden problem so that the Chruch can now be purified of this filth.
One commenter asks WHY didn’t the Church turn this priest over to the civil authorities? The answer is, the civil authoriteis DID look into the cases of the victims that came forward and chose not to prosecute. This is often the case, especially with older cases, because civil law also provides statutes of limitations or because the rules of evidence can’t be met.
Finally. Something worth reading. This is very plain, just as it should be, without all of the sensationalism of American media. It clearly answers the questions which are so pertinent and on everybody’s mind.
Now, on to Germany. Let’s get that one cleared up too so we can go on living.
“...I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood
The ‘dignity’ of the priesthood ended with the first priest who raped a child or a nun or a fellow priest… so about 4000 years ago…
Thank you for this. I wish you had a bigger forum that reached out into the secular world.
Shall we be surprised to see our Holy Father being put on trial with cries of “crucify him, crucify him” resounding throughout the world this close to Easter? I should think not. I think, rather, that we should expect such a thing. Holy Mother Church, and our Holy Father, cannot help but carry the cross along with Christ. The Body must go where the Head leads…and that road leads to Calvary. Just remember that if we are crucified with Him, then too shall we rise with Him. Benedict’s sufferings will bring great graces to the Church in the fullness of time.
We do need to complain about bias. Sure there were and still are some people in the church that deserve to have questions raised about what they did or did not do. But saying that all accusations are fair because some are fair just does not make sense. The pope is being targeted because he is the pope. That is not fair and Abp Dolan is right to point that out. He is also right to point out the Times has a long hisoty of being unfair to the church.
Make no mistake, this is a terrible scandal that angers all of us Catholics, and we hope and pray for the day when such evil as the sexual abuse and molestation of children will be eradicated from the Body of Christ.
However, for anyone to honestly think that the New York Times, MSNBC, and other despicably anti-Christian “news outlets” are not blowing this story up to epic proportions in order to convey larger ideological messages, such as “The Catholic Church is evil, corrupt, and must be destroyed,” then their naivete is astounding.
I refuse to sit back and allow the hateful anti-Christian “news” media libel and slander the Holy Father, entire Church, over 1 billion Catholics, and thousands of priests who are good and compassionate men who selflessly serve others in the name of Christ.
The New York Times, MSNBC, and others couldn’t care less about the evil sex abuse of children within the Church. They are simply exploiting this horrible scandal to express their deeply held and irreconcilable anti-Catholic bigotry. This evil and filth within the Church presents yet another opportunity to bash the universal Church and create a virulently anti-Catholic narrative.
We must pray that the Church is purified of such evils and those who represent the Church and who would ever dare abuse young people and children are immediately expelled from the priesthood and reported to law enforcement for criminal prosecution.
“If the world hates you, know that it hated me first.”
“Why does the church not turn these matters over to the police? WHY? Please give me some answer to that that makes a modicum of sense.”
Jayson, please re-read Jimmy’s piece. Murphy’s victims DID complain to the police in the mid-1970s - the police ALREADY KNEW. They chose not to prosecute. The POLICE chose NOT to prosecute. No one in the Church, on any level, was keeping anything back from the police in this case.
Are there other cases in which the police were not informed? Sure, there could be. But this case is not 1 of them. Your anger is misplaced here.
Mr D’Hippolito, please specify who is “enabling” in the Murphy case. I fail to see where Mr Akin is “blaming the messenger” here nor is he assigning guilt to those who question Catholic authority. Please re-read the piece & you’ll find instances where Jimmy specifically mentions potential fault to be found in the Murphy case. Finally, you are blind if you think there is not a real agenda against the Catholic Church present & active at the NY Times. Why are they not as up-in-arms about similar such predatory behavior in Protestant denominations or in our public schools? Were the NYT to put 1 part-time reporter on those cases, they’d find a mountain of them.
Do I say that to avert attention from these cases in the Catholic Church? No. Those who were abusers or allowed the abuse to continue should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. But let’s, as a society, demand the same from all institutions, shall we? Are you willing to be that consistent, Mr D’Hippolito?
Thank you Jayson – you are SO RIGHT! “No priest who admitted to raping 19 boys should be allowed to “quietly live out their days”. They should be in prison. That’s the scandal.”
People around the world are FINALLY waking up to the sins of your “Fathers”. Little place to hide these days. And we will not ALLOW your priests to get away with it any longer. And if the public media has not crossed its “Ts” or dotted its “Is” - believe me people do not care about that.
There is a huge ocean of evidence that the Catholic Church has shown indifference and lofty attitudes for thousands of years. They have hidden, protected and foisted perverts onto the loving faithful through out all TIME! Single mothers, who brought their children to Church for teaching, were wronged. These perverts should be put in stockades in public to be ridiculed as was done in the dark ages. If they are old - - who cares? !
In the strictest canonistic rules and roles of the church, the church officials certainly played it by the book. But, in the REAL world out the officials in higher positions ARE liable for any wrong doing on the part of their subordinates.
Even though Bertone said to go ahead with the prosecution - - he should also have been more responsible to the people in your church and made SURE Murphy was prosecuted to the fullest extent. The man was a CRIMINAL!
You BET - - the Catholic Church (and protestant churches too) are at fault. All priests who have raped boys, women and men should be held accountable and JAILED just like anyone else.
If your complaint is that Fr. Murphy should have gone to prison, the proper target of that complaint is the prosecutor who declined to pursue a case against him. The state owns the prisons. The Church has no authority to send people to prison. It is therefore illogical and unjust to blame the Church for not putting Fr. Murphy in prison.
Did the bishops cover up his crimes? No. The police already knew about them, and did nothing.
Did the bishops shuffle him around to one another, getting him out of their individual dioceses, but endangering new flocks in other cities? No. The bishops removed him from active ministry and sent him away to retirement in an environment where he wouldn’t experience ongoing temptation to repeat his sins.
Were any innocent persons (children or otherwise) placed in danger as a result of the bishops’ actions in this case? No.
Would Fr. Murphy have died at home even if everyone involved had done exactly what we, with the benefit of hindsight, think they should have done? Most likely, yes. Molesting children is not a capital offense, much as some of our more blood-lusty brethren might like it to be. If he’d been promptly prosecuted and convicted in a court of law, he’d have been sentenced to a term of years in prison, and then released. Unless his incarceration made him the victim of lethal violence by other prisoners, he’d have been free to walk the streets for a couple of decades before 1998.
At MOST, this case shows that the internal bureaucracy of the Church still has some flaws in its administration. The most serious credible charge against the Church as an institution is that CDF did not reply with sufficient promptness to an inquiry from a bishop. This is unfortunate, surely, but does not impose any substantial burden I can see on the promotion of justice or the protection of the innocent.
It may be worth looking into the question of whether CDF is the right prefecture to deal with these cases. It’s certainly worth asking whether the curia has the staff and other resources it needs to carry out its many and varied missions efficiently and well.
But none of these legitimate questions for discussion and review make out an indictment against Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of CDF, much less Benedict XVI as Pope.
Jayson and Samy:
Read what Jimmy wrote:
“In the mid 1970s his victims complained to the police, but this did not result in a trial.
Note well: This is not a case of the diocese preventing the police from knowing about it. They already knew.”
The church is not in charge of sending people to prison. The DA and the courts are in charge of that. I agree that Murphy should have gone to jail, but the fact that he didn’t is the doing of the civil authorities. The church did make sure that Murphy was removed from any possibility of continuing to commit these horrible acts. That’s about all the church could do.
Thanks for the follow up guys. I misunderstood what happened. The authorities were notified, and did nothing. The Church obviously can’t be blamed for that. I’m a faithful servant of Christ’s Church, but have seen evil from its members and don’t want to see it again. I disagree with Samy’s rant.
Mr Akin:
I am Deaf and I work for a Metropolitan Church in Western Canada.
One of my concerns is precisely the press’ method of communicating with Deaf people. As a person whose primary language is ASL (but can also speak), I wonder whether the questions posed by the press to Deaf victims of Fr Murphy’s crimes understood clearly what was being asked of them, and I also wonder whether they have made their own answers clear. In my years of working as a “bridge” between the Deaf and the hearing communities, mis-communication between sign language and written/spoken language is almost inevitable.
I wonder how much of this “margin of error” has been taken into account in the press’ reports.
Sincerely,
Matthew G. Hysell, M.A., M.Th.
I think we should all write to the NY Times to demand that Maureen Dowd retract her hateful statements and apologize for totally distorting the facts, and if she refuses, she should be fired. She is actively working to stir up extreme animosity against the Church and should be held accountable if, God forbid, some looney-tune decides to commit a violent act against Catholics.
WriterWriter sez: “The ‘dignity’ of the priesthood ended with the first priest who raped a child or a nun or a fellow priest… so about 4000 years ago.”
This is the most frustrating thing about all of this. No matter how much rational argument and evidence you present the “haters” with, statements like this are deemed sufficient by them as rebuttals. There is no communication. Samy’s comments above are in tune with this: “Catholic Church = rapist priests = destroy.”
Truly the barbarians are at the gates… and we invited them in. Therefore, repent and do penance, fellow Catholics, and forever remember this scandal so that we can prevent such things from ever happening again: the abuses, the cover-ups, and the lack of communication with a hostile secular world.
Peace in Lent,
Tele
I think we should all write to the NY Times to demand that Maureen Dowd retract her hateful statements and apologize for totally distorting the facts, and if she refuses, she should be fired.
How about just one line: “Catherine Zeta-Jones DOUGLAS pwns your face.”
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Thanks for this article. I have been hearing the negative press in the news (almost threw something at my tv watching MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell). I now feel like I have a better handle on what transpired. Looks like the media is piling on for other reasons. Of course it’s no coincidence it’s happening during Holy Week. Thanks again
True, priests have committed horrible crimes of abuse.
True, so have many, many others who were trusted with the well-being of children.
True, the Catholic Church needs to fight harder to prevent future abuse.
True, the Catholic Church does not have a time machine.
Let’s admit our wrongs and concentrate on the present, ya’ll.
So what if the New York Times or anyone else hates the Church or has it in for the Church? So what?
That has nothing to do with the fact these sins and crimes were committed and were then compounded by the sins and crimes of the higher-ups.
Deal with that. Fix that. Respond to that.
Anything else is just more smokescreens and denial and inability to man up and own your wrongdoing.
And if you’re so darned convinced this one or that one has it in for you, how stupid are you for giving them ammo like this? (you, in this case, meaning the Catholic Church).
While in Rome I heard a lot of bad rumors about this pope’s private life. Sorry to say this because I am catholic but this is not a good man.
Well, if you heard *rumors* then that’s that. Crucify him!
Good explanation of the facts in the Fr. Murphy case. I think they do exonerate the Pope. However, what about the Maciel case? Then Cardinal Ratzinger was head of the CDF in the late 1990s when a group of men filed a sex abuse suit against Marcial Maciel through Vatican channels. ( this was after many preceding complaints, including to the Apostolic Nuncio in Washington D.C. which were ignored). The CDF refused to act on it, and the explanation that came out later was that Pope John Paul II would not permit it. Does the current Pope share in the blame for this? Was his authority as head of the CDF a sham, subject to the whims of the Pope? The whole hierarchical system leaves much to be desired. And as to the complaints of media bias, and targeting of the Catholic Church, if the Church itself had not provided the ammo, it wouldn’t be attacked so bitterly.
Gene- You mentioned a lack of stories about abuse in other faiths, and I think that’s a good point. I imagine that the Church, with it’s structure, and strong organization, is much easier to attack and sensationalize than one independent “non-denominational” church, or a couple loosely associated evangelical churches. It doesn’t ring of national scandal when unaffiliated clergymen of random denominations are accused of abuse. It’s hard to tie them together or to place blame on any one figure. It is however very easy to do that in the Catholic Church. Of course, it’s not exactly fair or right, and has the ability to be blown out of proportion and misconstrued (especially misconstrued, as I believe we are seeing in the case of the present attacks on the Holy Father). But it is what it is, and I don’t know that it will change. The only thing we can do is arm ourselves with knowledge and gently try to correct misconceptions. It may not change everyone’s views, but a few may hear and understand. I think a lot of this comes from a lack of understanding of Church authority and a resistance to the Church’s authority (or what it is seen as being).
No problem, Jayson - I think it’s safe to say many of us have been angry about this situation, at least I’ve shared it. BTW, I intended no personal attack in my post, just some fraternal correction & I hope it came across that way - looking back, I think it may have come across as too harsh & that was not my intention. I beg your pardon if you took it that way. And you’re correct, Samy’s rant is . . . disturbed at best & worthy of deletion by the NCR, IMO. It adds nothing productive to this discussion.
Bill, I’ve written the Dowd at the NYT a few times because of her repeated anti-Catholic rants. She perpetually misrepresents (read: ignores) fact & common sense. Yes, we all should write them. I firmly believe the mainstream media is more than a little at fault for the public’s overall view of this scandal, necessitating men like Archbishop Dolan go on the offensive &, at least to some eyes (perhaps those looking for it), appear as if he’s trying to deflect blame. He, of course, was not. But, because of the MSM’s constant misrepresentation, he’s treated as suspect. The MSM has purposefully sullied & muddied the waters here.
Joe, I wear no rose-colored glasses. I’m very well-versed in the history of the Catholic Church - both good & bad. Yes, there were “Bad Popes”. Yes, there were those who used the papacy as a princely political position rather than to serve God & His people. Yes, it can be said that, to horribly paraphrase Gandhi, that Christians are their own worst exemplars. But it was Jesus Christ Himself Who chose Judas Iscariot as 1 of His 12 closest followers, knowing fully what Judas would do. He never said there wouldn’t be bad Christians, Joe, or bad priests or bad popes. But He did promise that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. And they have not, despite our best efforts to allow that very thing to happen! We, all of us - every man & woman who have labeled themselves a Christian in the last 2000 years, are responsible for the state of the Church right now. I’m not going to point fingers at any nun, brother, deacon, priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, or pope without first pointing a few in my own direction, to clean my house out before I tell others how to keep theirs. We are all guilty, Joe. Christ loves us anyway. I’m not in any way blind to any Church scandal, especially this one. But it we were to rid the Church of every person who has caused Her scandal, there would be precious few left the Her pews. I would probably be 1 of the first thrown out. But at least I could commiserate with others who’ve been poor witnesses for Christ. I’ve denied Christ far more than St Peter’s 3 times. But I rely on His mercy. And I’m instructed by Jesus to forgive as I wish to be forgiven. I believe that is the biggest scandal in Christianity for so very many people. We don’t want to forgive & yet we must. Christ said of those who caused His followers to go astray that it would be better if a millstone were tied around their necks. His justice is perfect & His mercy is infinite!
St Paul tells us constantly in Romans to persevere, to overcome. I wonder if he was given a vision of what the Church Christ founded would look like at Her lowest points? Or, maybe he just looked at the witness of some of the Christians around him? The ones he wrote epistles to.
Nothing changes, Joe, unless we change first, unless we go deeper, unless we become more docile to the Christ through His Church & His Sacraments, subvert our will for His, & allow that change to happen in us first. Change is not “yes, we can” but “yes, HE can”. Judas was a liar & a thief from the beginning, we’re told (if I’m remembering that verse right - correct me if I’m not) & the Church still suffers from his scandal today (just watch the History Channel every Easter). Jesus knew what scandals would befall His Church even before He was incarnated. But He still died for us, while we were yet sinners. How can I respond to that any other way but to love Him in return? Even though I’m acutely aware that I’m far less than perfect and despite my witness & that of every other Christian.
Pardon my rambling.
Thank you Jimmy so much for your efforts to clarify what the documents actually say. It is invaluable for us who do not have the time or skill to analyze them. I have read several different accounts from respectable Catholic sources and they don’t quite all agree, making it difficult for me to figure out what is going on. But I do have a question. From the little I have been able to read of the original documents, I noticed that you said Murphy began his ministry at St John’s in 1963, however the psychological report from the social worker states that Murphy said he began at St John’s in 1952. Also, the letter from Weakland to the CDF stated Murphy began in 1950. In addition you only remarked on the 19 boys Murphy admitted to, comparing them to 200 that you seem to indicate is a figure speculated by the media. While the social workers report indicates there were 29 specific names reported as being victims, she appears to be the individual who speculated the number was 200. And Rev Brundage’s investigation results estimate there were 100 plus deaf people who were affected as children. Not remarking on this other information in your section on fact reporting could lead critics to accuse you of falsely portraying the extent of Murphy’s actions as being less substantial than they actually are.
Thanks.
One more thing, will we ever know why things were not pursued in the diocese at the time of the allegations?
I would really like to know why things were not pursued then.
You also must keep in mind the time these events occurred. Read the psychology texts from the mid-70s and see what they have to say about pedophilia and particularly the victims of pedophilia. You’ll find minimal mention of pedophilia and none about the victims. It’s only in the mid-80s that psychology texts start providing information both about the illness (and remember: the American Psychiatric Association, the publishers of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is considering removing “pedophilia” as a disease, considering it “a sexual choice”) and it’s effects on the survivors of sexual abuse. Given these attitudes, I’m not surprised the DA refused to press charges against Murphy.
What about the scandal of public schoolteachers sexually abusing students? That seems to me to dwarf the priest sex abuse scandal in the Church. But I don’t see the liberal press crusading for an end to the public school system.
Dear Jimmy,
I would love to see your reporting of the true facts on the front page of the NY Times… barring that, it would make a perfect op-ed piece to Maureen Dowd’s egregious misrepresentation of the facts.
Were this to occur, you will have one of the two miracles necessary for your canonization.
However, you gave us the truth ~ perhaps its ripple effect will counter the lack of truth presented by the iconic Grey Lady. One can hope….
Thank you for a clear, detailed analysis of this situation. The media needs to be brought to task more often for what it says, how it says it, and what it omits.
The sad thing is, those who hate and bash the Church will not be persuaded by logic and reasoned argument; they will only lash out more.
Thus, the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Maureen Dowd will continue to mock and bash the Church, and the secular media will continue to give them a platform (and pay them good money) to do so. It is what it is.
Our best response is to witness—which does include responding to media disinformation in a thoughtful manner, even if the media try to ignore us—and, of course, to pray.
The NY Times has their own agenda - abortion and gay marriage. In order for them to claim a moral high ground on those issues they need to tear down the church. The same is true for all who argue that gay marriage and abortion are civil rights.
It is amazing that the case got even that “high up” in the CDF. Here is an analogy:Would you see a company with 1.2 billion employees worldwide and plants, with a local territorial manager (bishop) responsible, operating 24/7 in every town of every country have a complaint of a factory supervisor to be fired and turned over to authorities for crimes against employees settled at its world headquarters by a VP. The local manager (bishop) who is in charge would fire the guy and turn him over to authorities. In the Church the bishop is responsible for his diocese and answers to the Pope how it functions, i.e., Waekland who made the diocese of Milwaukee go broke and his scandalous tenure should have been “fired”, same as a regional manager would in the secular world. There is the fault of all of this.
A couple more thoughts on motives of the press:
Is this “payback” for opposition to the health care bill/effort to neuter opposition when the Executive Order that isn’t worth the paper it’s written on is summarily revoked?
Saw a follow up article on MSNBC today about Catholic “turmoil” which of course had all the disillusioned catholics at the beginning of the article and comments from those who didn’t blame the pope at the back (fair and balanced!). Not surprisingly, they were pushing the idea that Catholics should skip confession because priests are worse sinners than their parishoners, as well as the idea that allowing priests to marry was somehow the cure for this. For all those who think the Times and other members of the mainstream media have an agenda - there it was, on display.
Read Fr. de Souza’s response here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxYmUzMTQ1YWUyMzRkMzg4Y2RiN2UyOWIzNDVkNDM
I’d be interested to see if one of those protestors in Rome breaks rank and gives a clue what is going on.
To Jayson:
I think a big contributing factor to the Church’s tendency to deal with things quietly and not report to the police is that the Catholic Church is very much a religion of conversion and forgiveness…as in Jesus refusing to condemn the adulterous woman and instead forgiving her.
In practice, however, some crimes cannot be treated so ideally because of the danger of scandal or further abuse. But the Church is human. Being human, her leaders can and do make the very human mistake of acting too idealistically.
I do not think Church leaders realized the necessity of reporting such cases to the police. Perhaps they were thinking too much on a “spiritual” level and not enough on the practical level of what such failure would mean to our pluralistic society.
Jimmy, I very much appreciate your efforts to set the record straight. There’s one point of fact that appears confused, though, when you write, “In 1995, some of Murphy’s victims and their lawyers contacted the new archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland (ironic, yes, but that’s a different issue), reporting Murphy’s actions from the 1970s.”
Archbishop Weakland was not new in 1995. He was appointed archbishop of Milwaukee in 1977.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bweakland.html
As is the norm with the media, they always seem to mis-interpret information to sell copy without the slightest intention of presenting truth. All the arm-chair jounalists come out of the wood work.
I suggest you look at WWW.spiritdaily.com for interesting comments made by the canon lawyer who presided at the trial. Article, Presiding Judge in Wisconsin case states handwritten notes not his. Very enlightening.
Jason, and any one else who missed the record. THE POLICE WERE NOTIFIED BY THE VICTIMS AND THE POLICE DID NOT ARREST OR ATTEMPT TO PROSECUTE. THE CHURCH DOES NOT SEND PEOPLE WHO COMMIT CRIMES TO PRISON. THE STATE DOES. THE MOST THE CHURCH COULD DO WAS FIRE HIM (LAICIZE HIM). THE VATICAN WAS NOT EVEN NOTIFIED OF THE CRIMES FOR OVER 20 YEARS. THE STATE FAILED TO ACT WHEN THE STATE WAS NOTIFIED. CAN YOU PEOPLE EVEN SMELL THE COFFEE!?
http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/03/pedophile-priests.html
Jimmy, thank you! Your work here is excellent. I have been reading the documentation a good part of the evening.
I noticed in particular how bad the translation was of the Italian minutes of the crucial meeting of May 30, 1998 at the CDF. [Note for those who haven’t read the docs: the translation was done by machine some twelve years ago; even Google translations are laughable now; imagine what they were like back then].
I am a professional translator with a wide knowledge of Italian and Italian literature. I’ll try to fill a gap for you and other readers, especially since crucial parts of this paragraph were left out in the translation. This part comes after Bertone has stressed how long ago the events took place, and how little evidence there is to go to trial. The text should properly read:
——
4. Archbishop Weakland commits himself to try to obtain from Father Murphy – whom he compares to a “difficult” child – a declaration of repentance; all three psychologists who have examined him consider him a “typical” pedophile, who therefore “considers himself a victim.” In this regard, the Under-Secretary [of the CDF] Father Gianfranco Girotti, stresses that the said priest will have to give clear signs of repentance, “otherwise we will have to have recourse to a trial.” His Excellency the Secretary [i.e. Bertone] proposes imposing on him a period of spiritual retreat together with a salutary admonition in order to be able to understand whether he really is repentant or not, otherwise, he would expose himself to the risk of having more rigorous measures imposed on him, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state. He then advises entrusting him to a priest as his spiritual director, with meetings every one or two months.
———-
The emphasis on the words “dismissal from the clerical state” (if it comes through) was in the original. The important thing is that they were not dismissing the possibility of a trial (at least Girotti wasn’t), and they may even have been trying to set up a situation where Murphy could be dismissed from the clerical state even without a trial. Maybe someone else with more knowledge of canon law could comment.
Archbishop Weakland was clearly unhappy with the results, but he dawdled for some 18 years and a lot of evidence was probably lost. The CDF was at least faster than that.
Thank you for your clear and succinct presentation of the matters related to then Cardinal Razinger’s involvement in the Fr. Murphy case.
Thank you.
WHY in the WORLD, the Hearing people can not arrest Fr. Larry Murphy for his terrible actions? Fr. Murphy was NOT a holy man, just alike a guy in your neighbor. WHY can’t the Catholic Church expel Fr. Murphy immediately?
If you are interested in more of the truth see the article below:
Setting the record straight in the case of abusive Milwaukee priest Father Lawrence Murphy
by Father Thomas Brundage, Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003.
http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601
Beth writes: However, what about the Maciel case?
Maciel was removed pretty quickly after Benedict’s election, so it does seem as if Benedict was keen to take care of this issue. The question becomes, as you say, did Pope John Paul interfere? It’s possible, and I’ve read that it’s because when he was a bishop in Poland, the Communists routinely used accusations like this against priests they didn’t like. So John Paul tended to view accusations like this in a light differently than we do today. Since John Paul’s personal esteem for Fr. Maciel’s order was quite high, he may well have considered the accusations against him to be similarly baseless.
Keep in mind that most of the Legion of Christ was in the dark about it, and IIRC even those who knew something were shocked when they learned just how bad the matter was. Maciel had a talent for lying and for hiding.
Our media propagates or encourages homosexuality, divorce, premarital sex etc and at the same time they publish these events if committed by priests First let them teach good morals Then criticise others. Media is responsible for the deterioration of morals in Europe and America. Now that trend is taken over by media of the developing nations too. Ultimately they want some news to spread on the pages and sell them and make money. Is this good ? Let media try to cultivate good morals and human values through their media.
Thank You Jimmy Akin for finding the truth. I am certainly happy to see all of the information written down so that people can be referred to the facts instead of the media hype that has been going on each day. I have read many e-mail and posted comments that criticize the Catholic Church and how it should be condemned. I want to say to the people that want this to happen that it will never be. The Catholic Church did not condone these activities it was the decision made by people who were suppose to be carrying out the rules related to such actions. We the people are the Catholic Church because of our faith in God. This cannot be destroyed by mistakes made by others. I hope that the article of clarification will be read by many. I certainly feel better knowing what the facts are rather then guess work by the media and those who believe everything they read. Thanks Jimmy Akin
Do not trust the left wing media as they have an agenda
In response to Jayson:
It says here that this issue was brought to the attention of the police early on:
“In the mid 1970s his victims complained to the police, but this did not result in a trial.”
I don’t know why the police turned down the trial but that they had the opportunity to deal with it is evident.
I guess what would have me wondering is why Ratzinger as head of the CDF at the time didn’t handle the case and potentially had it differed to someone under him. Perhaps though he was never made aware of it, or perhaps he was working with the current Pope at the time and was busy. In PR relations I think Ratzinger would have handled this case had he known about it but it appears that there is currently no decisive evidence to prove that he ever did.
Well, to be fair to the media, the CDF’s actions were insufficient. Their recommendation should have been to defrock Murphy once the allegations were considered valid beyond a reasonable doubt.
The CDF was simply following the Code of Canon Law, as it should, but they can be faulted for not seeing that cases like this required more drastic and expedited action.
However, this is a very minor piece of the puzzle, and the media is wrong to try to damn Cardinal Ratzinger over it. 99% of the blame goes to the Diocese of Milwaukee and head villain Archbishop Weakland and his predecessor. He’s the one who sat on the case for 20 years until Murphy was on a path to death.
In Pope Benedict’s defense, once he was able to review files from hundreds of sex abuse cases (after the CDF was assigned responsibility in 2001), he did realize this, and since then most actions have been handled more expeditiously.
B.S.
Children abused! By priests. Covered up. By the church, under Ratzinger now Benedict.
No excuse is acceptable.
Benedict, remember, has sheltered Law in the Vatican, safe from US courts.
Evil monster? We’re just scratching the surface.
Cathy ~
You’re part of the problem… not the solution.
Read THE FACTS… otherwise you’re part of the screaming rabble ~ just lending your voice to the din without doing the background work to arrive at the truth.
And, incidentally, how is Cardinal Law safe from U.S. courts? Are you privy to knowledge re: a warrant for his arrest? A subpeona that he hasn’t answered? Just how do YOU know something the rest of us don’t know? If you bothered to “do the homework” and read the THE TRUTH, you would arrive a rational understanding that this Pope has done more to rid the Church of this filth than anyone else ~ including reorganizing the way these cases are dealt with in Rome so that these monsters are dismissed from the priesthood with greater haste. It’s all there for you to learn ~ just like the rest of us have ~ but no, you’d rather just believe whatever they tell you on the boob-tube or what you hear in the crowd… just like the crowd outside of Herod’s court.
For God’s sake ~ smarten up and READ THE FACTS AND LEARN THE TRUTH!
Thanks, Cathy!
No evidence required…just emotion…let the witch hunt begin!!
If he floats, he’s a witch…burn him!!
If he sinks, I guess he wasn’t a witch. Oh well.
Excellent article and thanks for summarizing the step by step process. I agree totally with your summary that this is about the press making money, hatred toward the Catholic church and pure ignorance.
Rev. SJG,
I think you are in error in thinking that Cathy is interested in a solution; she appears to be interested only in condemnation, even on the flimsiest of evidence.
We are seeing a re-enactment of the Passion, with the Pope now on the receiving end of the mindless shouts of “Crucify him!” and being betrayed with trumped-up evidence. “He eats with sinners and tax collectors!” He, like Christ, has remained silent.
The media are the Pharisees, and this time, there doesn’t even seem to be a Pontius Pilate in authority who will step up to say that he finds no fault in this man.
Let us wait it out and the Resurrection will surely come as well.
Excellent article. Your explanation was exceptional. I wonder what would happen if you sent this to Maureen Dowd….would she print it?
God Bless,
Cathy Parjer
Thank you for giving us some clarity on this topic so that we faithful Catholics can fend off the wolves and use facts to heal this huge mess the media is deliberatly causing.
I refer you to this article written by the canonical judge who handled Fr Murry’s investigation. He tells what he can without breaking law in his own words. He also cites facts on the NY Times’ own website that contradict some of the atrocious stories that the NY Times have been printing inccorectly about Pope Benedict! http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601
A MUST READ!
You can sign up to participate in a piritual bouquet for Pope Bendict by going on the cardinal Newman website.
Truth will triumph! Many thanks to Our Holy Father for suffering the persecution and standing up for the True Catholic Church!
What’s most striking about all the abuse scandals is that the response from the Church has ALWAYS been to cover it up and if at all possible to prevent the Pedophile from facing criminal prosecution and jail. This has been true regardless of the country, regardless of whether the local Bishop dealt with the matter himself or took the issue to higher authority. It was official policy to keep these things silent, and it was enforced.
Is there any other institution that has devoted itself to protecting pedophiles? Is there another institution that has demanded victims swear to keep silent or face excommunication? No, there is not. It is therefore the Church that has singled itself out for special scrutiny and approbation. The reaction of Catholic leaders and their spokespeople should be one of shame and contrition. But instead, those who protected pedophiles and actively intervened in ways that cause HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN TO BE RAPED BY ALREADY KNOWN PEDOPHILES are protected and anyone and everyone except those who committed and abetted the most horrific crimes imaginable are blamed.
Jesus wept.
Wow, thank you for the thorough explanation! Now if you could only get this printed in the Times.
Doesn’t the media participate in a public lynching or murder (Terri Schiavo) of a Catholc every Holy week, lately? I believe this is PAYBACK FROM THE PRO-ABORTS AND RADICAL HOMOSEXUALS for not endorsing evil.
Wow! It took them 4 years to dig up ANYTHING. We all know how they like to demonize Christians (especially those who SPEAK AGAINST liberalism).
The Pope is a good man. That’s why the Holy Spirit selected him. Woe to these filthy media people who try to slime him….WOE.
Dear Mr. Akin,
I read every word of the documents published by the New York Times—some of the very few documents with the Vatican’s letterhead on them that the public has been able to take a peek at—and it was clear to me that Ratzinger was trying to sweep this under the carpet.
I shudder to think what else we will find in the filing cabinets of various church offices around the US and the world.
Regards,
Glenn W. Smith
J. Akin: “Civil prosecutors make these kinds of judgments all the time, deciding whether it is really worth it to devote the resources to proceed to a full trial when the accused is elderly, not a threat, and likely to die during the proceedings. They aren’t portrayed in the press as evil monsters, and from the facts of this case, Pope Benedict shouldn’t either. Your thoughts?”
Based upon the facts as they are known at this juncture, that seems to be a reasonable conclusion. It also seems that the NYT rushed to judgment. As for Maureen Dowd, well, she is who she is.
Let’s hope more facts come out about the situation and that the secular media exercise more care and discretion in the future. Let’s also hope that they exhibit the same tenacity in investigating other organizations - like the public schools.
Great job, Jimmy.
I went to the NYTimes site to read Maureen Dowd’s op-ed piece. It was bad enough. What really bummed me out (temporarily) were the nearly 457 comments posted by those clueless people who “agreed” with her and who wanted to air their gripes with the Church. What made me feel good was thinking what a great job Catholic Answers and EWTN do to educate people about the faith. This is a new kind of persecution we must endure.
The devil is laughing, but in the end, victory will be ours.
Once again in it’s violent anti-Catholic rhetoric, the NYT has distorted the facts in the Murphey case. Why is the Times so anxious to destroy the head of the world’s largest Christian religion? Perhaps they don’t want any light to shine on the OCHS or the SULZBERGERS and their historythat, both personal, and journalistically. While the Church has handled many of these matters poorly in the past, and in this age of E-mail, and Internet, these commissions could certainly respond and act more efficiently,than they have, it is reprehensible for the Times to twist the story to match their godless point of view.I dropped my subscription long ago.
MARGO La Barr
Glenn Smith,
Are you serious? It is hard to believe that you read the same documentation that I did. Cardinal Ratzinger actually did not personally respond to any of the letters. The most he could be blamed for is having the letters addressed to him as the head of the CDF. It is far from clear whether Cardinal Ratzinger even knew of the situation.
You have quite an imagination, sir!
I am way past worrying too much about what Maureen Dowd and her loyal band of fools she calls readers say. The woman is full of hatred toward the Catholic Church and never wastes an opportunity to attack the Church for having the gall to oppose her ultra-liberal secular utopia worldview. There is no degree of misinformation too great to stop her from pushing her agenda. The only sad thing here is that such as angry person has a public voice, though based on NYT readership that voice is growing more silent. I would recommend that we all pray for her and her like-minded colleagues that they find God’s love to replace their hatred.
Compare the fastidious examination of the relevant documents by Mr. Akin, a blogger for a small Catholic news organization, with the heedless emotional rant by Ms. Dowd, a fabulously compensated columnist for the nation’s largest and most decorated metropolitan daily newspaper. Tell me the American press hasn’t come completely off the rails.
Clearly, the future of journalism lies with the outlets that learn how to leverage citizen reporters to provide the body politic with the information it needs to function in a free society.
P.S. Thank you, Mr. Akin, for the outstanding service you’ve provided here. This Catholic American citizen is much edified and very grateful.
At the time the Church did the best they could using the standards and best science of the time. We should not use today’s standards to criticize what happened then. The Times did not even mention it at that time.
To give another example of which we are all familiar. Thirty to Forty years back, a DWI killing did not even result in an arrest. Today that would be unthinkable. Yet, we don’t go back and demand the removal of the people who didn’t make an arrest.
GR
How refresing to read a clearly written expose,not of the Church, but of the media! I canceled my subscription to the Cleveland Plain Dealer after reading Maureen Dowd’s scurilious op-ed piece and have subscribed instead to the Register.Keep up the good work.
I agree with the last few comments and I thank Mr.Akin for his additional comments. He used factual info related to this issue. It helps to know what is truth and what is just nasty commentary. Just enough to get people going and its generally people who feed on the negative of issues.It’s also people who for whatever reason have a grudge against the Pope. I would like to read about the good that the Pope has done for our followers. Factual info. Please.
Jayson: He said the police already knew about the allegations against Fr. Murphy. Why haven’t the media held their feet to the fire?
It doesnt matter if he molested 1 or 200 - HE SHOULD HAVE WENT TO JAIL - anybody else would have - I was raised Catholic and got away from this “cult” after finding out the truth!!! Priests, Bishops, and certainly POPES are not above the law - the pope is a MAN elected by MEN just like Obama - he is not infallible - GET him outta there - the Catholic church is the !@#$% in revelations - read your Bible - God would never condone this - the catholic church is responsible - hang em all
This is a fine exposition, although it has seemed evident from the beginning that the Milwaukee story was without merit insofar as it was intended to inculpate Cardinal Ratzinger. I find the Munich case rather more disturbing, not because of what actually happened but because of the Vatican reaction to it once it had become public knowledge. It is easy to believe that Archbishop Ratzinger had no personal knowledge of what was being done about Father Hullermann (particularly given the insufficient understanding at the time of the nature of his kind of vice). But it is disturbing to see this ignorance used as an excuse: as Archbishop he still carries institutional responsibility for what happened under his jurisdiction. I don’t want to see the Pope abase himself in the face of his enemies, nor can I presume to say what he ought to do. But somehow I’d feel better if there could be some sort of official acknowledgment that not only did the institutional Church fall short of its duties, and not only do many have to share responsibility for this, but also that those who did not uniformly live up to what we now see they should have also may include J. Ratzinger.
Our prayers are with you Dani
HE SHOULD HAVE WENT TO JAIL
The Church doesn’t put people in jail, the State does. The local police looked at the case, couldn’t find enough evidence, and dropped the matter.
Thank you, Jimmy. This is the clearest explanation of the Murphy case that I have found anywhere in the media. At the risk of spinning this discussion in a different direction, I have noted the following facts: 81% of the victims of abuse by priets were male; the peak percentages of abusers were ordained in the 10 year period following Vatican II; and the peak of reports of first incidents of abuse were in the ten year period following Vatican II. I doubt this was the springtime that Vatican II was intended to usher into the Church. We as a Church have a lot of work to do in selecting properly prepared men to enter the priesthood and in selecting those who would be bishops.
@Bruce Smith—
Is there any other institution that has devoted itself to protecting pedophiles? Is there another institution that has demanded victims swear to keep silent or face excommunication? No, there is not.
Except for the excommunication bit, yes, there are other institutions that have (and continue until this day) to shuffle abusers, pressure silence from victims and families, and not follow institutional policies and state law to report such abuses. My children’s public high school has been through the ringer this past year as exactly such matters have come to light. And I’m still not fully convinced they’re really “cleaned house” over there… :(
Usually I love to read what Akin is doing with apology work but this piece just blew me away. It is a horror show. The whole point in this is to rationalize the disgusting response Catholic church has given to this scandal. I’ve never heard an real apology which should have been issued since 1996 when Ratzinger for sure knew about this issue.
The cover up makes the hierarchy directly responsible and it makes Jimmy Akin and most of the commentators responsible. Any one that tries to just rationalize why the Church as a whole is not responsible is responsible to a worse degree.
People demand blood for this issue and I seriously hope that the pope is man enough to face direct responsibility for everything that he knew and that he didn’t know. He is the leader and it is time for him to lead. Any cardinal or bishop or priest with any knowledge should resign and all defenders including Jimmy Akin should start apologizing. This is about human lives and raped children for God’s sakes. It is not a petty issue.
One wonders where on earth many of those who have responded here have been when they criticize the church for “doing nothing.” There is no institution on earth that has repeatedly admitted its sins, error, mistakes, faults—you name that institution if you can. One person even said that when the first priest sinned, it destroyed the priesthood. Well, if a parent or the first parent did the same thing, did it destroy “parenthood?” This shows an obvious bias, and certainly poor logic and history. Millstones might be around the neck of serious sinners, but the same Jesus also said: do not judge because in the way you judge others you will be judged…He also said to a crowd: let the one without sin throw the first stone….in another example, he said that the man who said: Thank God that I am not like the rest of those sinners—-his prayer went unanswered, while the sinner in the back simply said: God, please forgive me. It seems clear by now (since the church has been dealing with this for eight years) that people might want to know how other groups are doing in comparison. for example: The Boy Scouts have files on sexual abuse going back to 1935 and there are FAR MORE than any clergy abuse. Where is the demand for outrage against the scouts? How about teachers and others…why the silence? The agenda is that once the church is “destroyed” (good luck at that) society and the world are up for grabs…guess by whom?
If you knew that your next door neighbor was a serial rapist (19 times over), would you just send him back to live peacefully with his mother?
If yes, then you are as guilty are he is.
Case closed.
Shame on everybody involved.
I remember reading speeches and comments by Bishop Weakland and I could not understand why the Vatican did not remove him from his office; he was off base in his teachings and he was of the world.
In the meantime, the secular world is taking no responsibility for its accommodation of the West’s extreme sexualized culture…how about the truth of the actions of Kinsey, the background of the ‘Kinsey Report’...and how it fueled the great sexual immorality, broken marriages, abortions; our teens now are 25% infected with STD’s.
We need to restore the innocence of our children and regain the upper hand in a most profane culture.
Maureen Dowd is one sick, hateful woman.
Jayson,
Let me respond to your question:
“Why does the church not turn these matters over to the police? WHY? Please give me some answer to that that makes a modicum of sense.”
Because the police already knew about it and did nothing. Reread the article:
“In the mid 1970s his victims complained to the police, but this did not result in a trial.
Note well: This is not a case of the diocese preventing the police from knowing about it. They already knew.” Besides, by the time this case was before the CDF, the statute of limitations for criminal courts in the US was up.
PAX
Jimmy & all, It is truly a pity that so many Catholics have fallen for the unfortunate tendency of our society to expect “Perfection”. It is truly not a Catholic approach. A man is not cleansed of all his flaws by his ordination. He may be called to a higher obligation, but like our first parents he may fail/fall. We all sin. We are called to pray for the souls of all sinners. If this priest was truly repentant, then I hope to see him in Heaven (God willing for me). We are called to pray and to forgive. It is that which is truly counter-cultural! Remember that God’s ways are not our ways. Given a choice between God’s Justice and Mercy, I will pray for his mercy for all sinners. I pray daily for all sinners, including poorly catechized politicians and journalists who pontificate as if they are part of the Magisterium. For those of you who are angry and wrathful, remember what Jesus taught us in the one perfect prayer he taught all Christians: forgive us as we forgive…
FYI… Maureen Dowd is a product of Catholic University of America (look up her wikipedia entry). Go figure.
The first comment about this issue is I don’t hate the catholic church. I was born and raised catholic. Now with that being said anyone that argues that the leadership of the Catholic Church didn’t know what was going on is naieve. The Catholic Church has paid millions and millions of dollars to their victims to try to make this shameful part of their history go away. I have no idea whether the pope knew about what was going on. That doesn’t matter. He is 1 of many who were in leadership roles when this was going on. It was their responsibility to know what these sick freaks were doing!!!! My friend and I have been debating this very subject for the past 4 days or so. I will say it again I will never ever step foot in a catholic church or support the church with my money till “they” they being the leadership of the catholic church stop protecting and covering up for these sick sick people.
Thanks
Mike Kurdila
I wonder if anyone - beside me - is uncomfortable with the fact that the person doing the analysis here - Akin - has been willing to see to the waterboarding of human beings? Given such an exquisitely sensitive set of political antenae, is there any doubt that such a person might opine rather dryly and clinically that “At most .... he [Ratzinger} recommended waiving the judicial proceeding due to the man’s advanced age and ill health while simultaneously taking steps to ensure that the man would not be a threat to anyone as he lived out his final months in seclusion” and this in a context where the emphasis of clerical judgments is seen as being skewed in favor of justice for offending priests and not for victims? While the Holy Father indeed would seem the target of an imprecise and scurilous media campaign to malign him, aid from such quarters as these finds him in rather bad company, I’d say.
Thank you for this article ... When Jesus carried his cross on Good Friday he was a condemned man ... people were screaming ‘Crucify him, Crucify him.’ People were following the crowd, they were being led by evil people ... people were caught up in the general confusion ... Upon the crosses were the good thief, Jesus, and the bad thief ... Out of all that confusion the good thief was able to see that Jesus was innocent ... He was of God! Who will we be? the good thief or the bad thief ... Jesus says ‘Will there be any faithful when I return.’
Thank you Jimmy Akin. Thank you for responding to Laurie Goodstein, and the other so called Journalist of the NYT.We have to respond, because evil can not stand the Truth. We know that the truth will make us free. As far as Maureen Dow. did she attend Catholic university? obviously is a bitter Woman. She along with L.Goodsteein are the standard bears of the NYT. (How ironic also that Weakland is involved in this mess) Keep up with the good work.
@ Anita Moore: this is a huge issue! Although it does not excuse the actions of priests who commit abuses, and theirs, because of their roles, are possibly more scandalous, it is constantly ignored that child abuse occurs at higher rates in virtually all demographics other than the Catholic priesthood! It has long been known that the majority of child sexual abuse occurs amongst MARRIED men, usually within the family or the circle of family friends! But the public perception is that Catholic priests represent this huge deomgraphic of child abusers…it is frustrating to see so many good, hardworking and holy priests suffer from this vilification.
The Church obviously has problems here. I think this abomination needs to be eradicated wherever it’s at. So…how about we start investigating the American public school system for abusers too?
Jayson, the police DID know about Murphy’s activities in the 1970’s. Why they decided not to prosecute is a mystery, but this is clearly not a case of the Church quietly protecting an offender. THANK YOU, Jimmy, for giving me a clear, concise presentation of the facts to mull over and memorize for the next dinner party slander I will encounter. As a survivor of abuse myself, I have to say that the media’s sensationalist approach to reporting this and similar cases pours bacteria into the wounds I carry. It is much harder to receive healing and recover when this constant invitation to resentment is offered. For the sake of the survivors of abuse, it would be much better for the media to present the case factually and responsibly, without vitriol.
Hey Jimmy. Do you have any thoughts regarding Sinéad O’Connor’s recent article? Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502363.html
I guess this means that every major CEO should be held accountable for any employee under his employ for any crime committed that he does not know about….....now that would really give the money hungry lawyers who are doing this some REAL money to chase. This entire thing is a chase to eliminate the Catholic church and nothing else. Society does not want to be told by anyone especially the Catholic Church what they are doing wrong today.
The Church obviously has problems here. I think this abomination needs to be eradicated wherever it’s at. So…how about we start investigating the American public school system for abusers too?
We have to be careful to avoid tu quoque. That is, deflecting criticism by pointing to someone else guilty of the same. It IS however legitimate to bring up when the suggestion is made that there is something unique to Catholic doctrine that causes evil. The recent hatchet pieces contain about 10% fair criticism and 90% BS. Don’t ignore the 10%, but be aware that people are going to insist an all-or-nothing proposal. That is, accuse you of “whitewashing” if you refuse to take the 90% bs with the 10% legitimate stuff.
@J. Lowell:
yes, you are the only one. I remember someone looking at facts in dispute over the 1962 Crimen document that was supposed to be “smoking gun” evidence in Church complicity of abuse. One commentor came on and asked if he would as spend as much effort on studying the pain of the victims. The reply was correct: he didn’t dispute the suffering of the victims, so why should he spend time talking about something not in dispute?
As far as the waterboarding thing, JA merely answered as best he could to a frankly pathetic attempt by others to put him and Mark Shea in Thunderdome and see if they would fight.
The only “Evil Monster” is the Devil himself. Let us not forget the biblical story where Jesus drives out the demon from a young man. The man himself was not the demon. Evil possesses people in all walks of life.
Have you not read many stories about natural birth mothers who abuse and kill their own children in horrifying ways? Does this mean that we should no longer believe in Mothers and Motherhood? Of course not, it means that evil can take over anyone and has. We belive in God, and that God through Jesus is Victorious in Everything, Jesus will make all things new. Charity is a carism and must be used to help all those that suffer, and of course mostly the young and fragile need to always be protected from “evil people”, but, we are living in “Evil Times” where anything goes, so let us look deep and try and prevent such things as much as humanly possible. amen, God save us!
Thank you for your great work. I think we should pray for those who lost faith because of the confusion the media has caused
Thank you Bella, nicely put and so right.
All one needs to know to refute what Mr. Akin is saying:
http://mumonno.blogspot.com/2010/04/not-much-to-report-today-but-i-will.html
@Scott W
“yes, you are the only one.”
Sure I am, Scotty, and you just keep believing that.
“The reply was correct: he didn’t dispute the suffering of the victims, so why should he spend time talking about something not in dispute?”
Why that was just as facile as you might expect from an abuser priest, Scotty. And the answer: Why shouldn’t he? :-)
“As far as the waterboarding thing, JA merely answered as best he could to a frankly pathetic attempt by others to put him and Mark Shea in Thunderdome and see if they would fight.”
Oh, no rationalizing required, actually, Scotty. The opinion, noxious as it was, not the context, was enough for me.
I keep remembering the words of Our Lady at Fatima: The Holy Father will have much to suffer.
Satan did not go away when the Communists fell in Russia. The war with evil did not end with the new millennium.
Pray. Especially pray the Rosary, every day, as our Lady asked us to do. It’s as important to do that as it ever was.
As the mother of a deaf son who attented school at St Johns..I am appaled
at this HUGE coverup…The GOOD old boys in the church have again made
rules that DO not apply to them.. How can we trust the church again to make good decisions.. May they see what HELL is really like and SUFFER..
they are NOT men of God but of the great coverup that has gone on for
years…Dump the Pope… get a woman of God in there is clean house
and do the right thing..
@John Lowell
Please do me the courtesy of talking to me rather than at me. I’m trying to answer in good faith and without snark. And my name is Scott, not Scotty please. If you took my “yes, you are the only one” as snark I apologize, that was not my intent at all, but I was quite serious because I have never hear anyone suggest the idea that Jimmy Akin is in favor of waterboarding (which I think is arguable) therefore, his commentary on this is suspect. Also, I am dead set against waterboarding, and not so sure about even using it as “training” for our military. So, let’s have a meeting of the minds about that rather than two-cats-in-bag-tossed-in-the-shower about this.
Why that was just as facile as you might expect from an abuser priest, Scotty. And the answer: Why shouldn’t he? :-)
What I gave was a short example. What I left out was that he indeed said the victims suffer and that justice should be done to the perpetrators. But the point of his entry was the egregious errors made about the Crimen document. The commentor wasn’t asking a good faith question, he just tossed a grenade into the combox and ran.
Fair enough. I think JA was wrong. I don’t think he was in bad faith.
God bless
Scott W.
I meant to quote your last bit before “Fair enough”. Sorry.
@Scott W
“...because I have never hear anyone suggest the idea that Jimmy Akin is in favor of waterboarding (which I think is arguable).”
Arguable, schmarguable, Scotty. Akin’s affection for waterboarding is as well known as Dick Cheney’s. Just don’t get caught with a “ticking timebomb” on your person, son, Jimmy might have you strapped and down taught his version of Catholic “orthodoxy”. With friends like Akin and most of those so prominently holding themselves out these days as defenders of his good name, Pope Benedict XVI needs few enemies. I’d once hoped the ReichsChurch logic so characteristic of the Akins and the Amy Stillborns would end with the passing of Richard Neuhaus, a gaseous entity so allegedly non-political that he just couldn’t seem to find a way to criticise the Bush 2001 decision federally funding stem-cell research. That hope was vain, sadly. If we’re to have moral commentary, lets mimimally have analysis done by morally persuaded people, eh?
Again, call me Scott please. I don’t know whether you would care if I called you “Johnny” or not, but I do know that I would stop if you asked me too.
Akin’s affection for waterboarding is as well known as Dick Cheney’s.
Now you have me wondering if I missed something. I remember the original exchange that involved Shea, but nothing after that. I may have to get re-aquainted with all that history, but if I recall correctly, Mark acknowledge that JA was one of the admittedly few people that argued in good faith. I can think of no one else more outspoken against waterboarding than Mark, so I think that counts for something. I’m open to the possibilty that Mark was wrong to do that, but I’d need to see the argument.
If we’re to have moral commentary, lets mimimally have analysis done by morally persuaded people, eh?
Fair enough, but I can tolerate a stopped clock insofar as it happens to be one of the times day it is right.
As a Catholic, I wish the people on this site defending the pope and our Church would spend one-100th the time and emotional energy supporting the victims, most of whom were children. Thousands and thousands of victims. All have suffered, most have left our Church and some have even committed suicide.
You are part of the problem. I once thought like many of you, I would be there parsing facts about Weakland, Milwaukee, media, isolated cases, etc. I do not anymore, the evidence is overwhelming, there are countless cases —our church had and apparently still has an institutional, systemic problem.
What would Jesus do? I promise he wouldn’t do the dancing and spinning like what is going on here. And he would not most certainly be blaming the media, liberals, church-haters or saying it’s all about “cash” like the writer of this article. It’s about the rape of children, who were largely ignored or ostracized when they reported their crimes against humanity. It’s about how this was allowed to happen over and over for decades. I guess the one price of good news is that we are finally not just blaming the victims anymore or calling them liars (except for Bill Donahue the other day “wondering” why it took so long for these children/parents to come forward…..God help him).
bdc:
I think most people on this site just use one-100th the time and energy to defend Pope and church.
P.S I’m not Christian.
bdc, it’s easy to smell rotten eggs, not so easy to lay good ones. You say we need to support the victims more. Ok, other than prayer how exactly? What needs to be put into place that isn’t in place already? And finally, should we concentrate on the 5% of what the MSM gets right, or go ahead and act on the 95% of calumny that goes with it just because?
I think most people on this site just use one-100th the time and energy to defend Pope and church.
I suppose we could let the Lutherans take over the defending for awhile: http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&catid=39:web-forum&Itemid=18
Apparently Scott it’s not so easy to smell rotten eggs as it is clear abuse has been going on for a very long time, and until an avalanche of bad publicity from the evil media you all complain of and lawsuits, nothing was done about it. How are we not completely and utterly horrified beyond words? Children….
I know of three priests guilty of this kind of crime, two are in jail. At first I argued aberration, but by the third, I knew something was amiss. The last one here was on “sabbatical” with full access to all of the children, it was only later after his conviction we learned he was awaiting trial in other state. Nothing was said before or after. How is that possible? Did you not read the letter sent from Bishop Weakland to the Vatican? And our response as a Church is “we do not know for sure if the Pope got it” or “they lost the papers?” What possible thing could the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith be working on that was more important than the abuse of deaf children? Where is the accounting?
What you do you ask for victims? They will tell you they want complete, honest, open vetting, full documents, accounting, and everything, and some accountability. Isn’t the sacrament of reconciliation one of the cornerstones of our Church? What are we afraid of? Unfortunately it is not ever going to happen, we just keep playing the victim card as are you claiming MSM gets it wrong 95% of time.
And please do not tell me that vetting has already happened…that is just embarrassing.
Keep spinning but you do us no good, we just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole by doing so. It’s clear we’ve learned nothing.
ABORTION AND CHILD PREDATORS?
THERE’S NO SCANDAL IN THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY?
What you do you ask for victims? They will tell you they want complete, honest, open vetting, full documents, accounting, and everything, and some accountability.
Thanks. That was the answer I was looking for, and it’s a good one.
Great article. I disagree on one point. You write: “At most (attributing everything to him that Bertone did) he recommended waiving the judicial proceeding due to the man’s advanced age and ill health while simultaneously taking steps to ensure that the man would not be a threat to anyone as he lived out his final months in seclusion.” I accept that maybe Bertone’s actions can be attributed to Benedict. I disagree with what is attributed to Bertone. First, Bertone recommended nothing; he “invited.” This seems more like a suggestion than a recommendation. What did he invite the bishop to do? Not to shut the proceedings down. Bertone had written “go ahead” as you wrote, by giving special permission and waiving the statute that would prevent the trial from proceeding. He was not interfering in the process by making a different recommendation or even a suggesting/inviting the bishop to do something different. Rather, because a sheep (Fr. Murphy) had appealed for charity, he was from one pastor to another INVITING the diocesan authority to keep in mind in HIS DECISION whether or not to proceed the combination of certain factors (primarily whether the purpose of the trial had been achieved by previous confession, repentance, and correction already, but I would think health and age also) when weighing whether scandal warranted a trial. In short, Bertone was not suggesting that the decision for the trial to proceed have a specific outcome (namely that it does not proceed) but only that the man making the decision keep in mind certain factors in making the decision.
Scandal is the only reason I can see for a trial continuing. It would consist on bringing Fr. Murphy in and having him state what he had already confessed and having Bishops give him sanctions they had already given, etc. Although I, Bertone, Ratzinger, and many others were not there, which is why the diocesan authority has to make this call, just from seeing the circumstances from a distance, I am predisposed to thinking that not only did the CDF act rightly by inviting the bishop to consider the previous corrections, but even the diocese (at least at this part of the process) acted rightly by waiving the proceeding. But like I just wrote: the judgment whether the trial should have proceeded is based on whether scandal to those in the local Church required a trial. It is impossible to know this from a distance. Far from seeing a problem with the CDF’s actions, I think they made good judgments, the correct ones from everything that can be seen and all the evidence we have.
The Pope is an Evil Evil Evil Monster.
The comment that you made about Ratzinger not necessarily reading all his mail as it was handled by his secretary does not resonate well with me! If he was in charge then he is responsible. CEO’s of companies take the fall when their executive officers make errors, because ultimately they are the ‘boss’. The Church has not handled abuse of its victims well and making excuses is rediculous, apologies would be more truthful. It is arrogant to continue to defend such wrong doing and it is criminal. We do teach ultimately that God will deliver just punishment for our sins on earth. I am a Catholic and a Social Service Worker and it is not just the church who has handled such things badly. In stead of hiding behind the semantics of this and that, it is time the Pope addressed the issue and simply apologized and assured the faithful that these things will NEVER happen again.
Jennifer, how little you know of the world. I can guarantee you that the CEOs of many campanies do not and cannot not read all the mail. They are not appointed to their position to do so. So I am not surprised that the good Cardinal did not read all the mail. AS for a promise this will never happen again, that would be a lie. The Church is run by humansand humans fail on a regular basis. If you wish for prefection, then start with yourself and reach that goal. Then start on those around you.
As for you Peter, the monster lives in your heart.
“I’m not saying that then-Cardinal Ratzinger/now-Pope Benedict XVI didn’t experience a learning curve on this point.” That’s one way of putting it, I guess. “And I don’t know what else is out there that remains to be discovered.” This is the most horrifying part of the whole thing, yet you say it so casually.
As the victim of child sexual abuse by a police officer some 32 years ago, I can tell you plainly that when one child’s family came forward, the officer involved was not punished, he was transferred, along with his wife and step-daughters, to a different town. The big difference with sexual abuse in the Church and sexual abuse in society, is that the Church has come forward to take the matter seriously in order to rid the Church of this vile and filth. This man, though married, proceeded to victimize children in the new town in which he was situated. I honestly think that the great “sin” in regards to secular society, is not that the Church calls us to hate the sin and love the sinner, but that secular society wants the Church, like itself, to love the sinner by loving the sin. Where was the secular media’s outcry when the new “safe-schools czar” admitted to not reporting the sexual abuse reported to him when a fifteen year old child told him that he had been assaulted by the teacher?
Infallible Pope ? Means that the Holy Spirit Speaks through him only.
I ask is any of the last 200 years and beyond the work of the Holy Spirit or by Monsters and please do not leave out the 4th Crusade
Call for Reformation
The Easter Season is the right time to call for the beginning of a Reformation in our Church.
Why now?
It is at this critical time under this Pope, that the Laity must demand reform, it Is not coming from our Church leadership.
The Laity must tell the Church Hierarchy from the parish priest to the Vatican:
1) Canon Law cannot be perverted to protect those clergy who are guilty of abusing children, no matter what the age of the priest or the child.
2) The Church is no longer in the Middle Ages or even the 1800’s, it can no longer take advantage of laity under the guise of ministry.
3) The Church collection and Mass account and any other donation made to the Church are no longer the pastor’s piggy bank but the property of the Church which is all the people.
4) It is time for clergy to reform to a life devoted to God and the Church and no longer to self indulgence. The clergy today looks far too much like the Pharisees criticized by Christ in the Gospels.
This is only the beginning. A short declaration to a lengthy beginning. The clergy the bishops the cardinals and even the Pope himself have failed us the Church in this modern time.
I know, I have experienced it, I have seen it from inside the Church and much more than a lay person should ever have seen or experienced.
Now to see that even the person of the Pope has a history tainted with transferring sexually abusive priests is too much.
Instead of acknowledging the evil in our Church and calling for reform from the pulpit, I and fellow Catholics were subjected to a harsh and angry sermon on Holy Thursday condemning the media for alerting us to what is happening and what has happened in Europe and Ireland.
That is too much and is the spark that drives the call for Reformation.
It is time!
Pat Gordon
“Render unto Ceaser”...If I know of a crime and do not report it,I become an accomplice.
This statement is an abysmal failure in both mathematics and logic.
You’re about 2000 years off on this one…the church/priesthood has been in existence for 2000 years. Those living 4000 years ago had about 2000 more years to wait before Christ would be born…
So, according to your logic, the following would also be true?
The “dignity” of the profession of teaching ended with the first teacher who raped a child or a nun or a fellow teacher
The “dignity” of physicians ended with the first physician who raped a child or a nun or a fellow physician
The “dignity” of the Irish (or Germans, or Senegalese, or Italians, or Australians, or New Zealanders…) ended with the first of this nationality who raped a child or a nun or a fellow human being
The “dignity” of trash collectors the ended with the first trash collector who raped a child or a nun or a fellow trash collector.
The “dignity” of poodle aficionados the ended with the first poodle aficionado who raped a child or a nun or a fellow poodle aficionado.
Your comment is ridiculous. Evil exists in every group, ethnicity, office, and profession. This is the human condition.
The above comment was in response to that of WriterWriter, posted March 30th, text below:
“The ‘dignity’ of the priesthood ended with the first priest who raped a child or a nun or a fellow priest… so about 4000 years ago…”
Pat Gordon You are absolutely Correct ! Dave I agree 100/%
Priests, Bishops, Popes, Patriarchs,Archbishops , Metropolitan s,or what ever the “Title” we have bestowed upon these men, when Christ was called Just the Son of Man,before his Crucifixion, and was here to bring Peace , Love, Healing to the Sick,and Change the Jewish Heirachy that their ways were wrong etc. I say to those who have touched raped little Children and have taken an Oath to Christ, let them rot in Jail.Go to Ceasar at 4th and Tryon and turn your self in and confess
Catholic Mike - you didn’t get it - I said the church should ensure that priests don’t get moved around and passed on to other unsuspecting victims and THAT should be a should be a guarantee. They cannot ensure abuse doesn’t happen but they can ensure that when it is found out, the priest is arrested and prosecuted under the law. And ditto to you - there is no such thing as a perfect world, and you are right good ness begins with each and every one of us, including you, peace brother! The Pope is not perfect either.
Thank you for your article and for your links to the documents, Jimmy. People within and without the Church have been quick to point their accusing fingers at the Holy Father. Many of them quote Scripture while they call for him to be punished, even removed from office, as if it were a mere political office, a position of political and worldly power. I haven’t heard a one of them call to mind the Scripture in which the Lord spoke to a crowd who accused a woman of sin, saying, “Let him that is without sin among you first cast the stone at her” (John 8:7).
The Church tries to show mercy and forgiveness, not swift and terrible justice, and the crowds go wild in their fury against her. There is no pleasing some people. But pleasing people is not what the Church is about. All of us are answerable to God for our action or inaction. Not to angry mobs, anxious for a lynching.
I have a thought experiment. Imagine if the European Union complained publicly of the injuries, death, loss of land, and other atrocities that had happened to the people of West and Central Africa at the hands of the French colonizers, from the 18th century, down to this very day. “The French must make a full and fair accounting and restitution for their atrocities in Africa,” the European Union demands.
The French reply, “why should we be the only ones to make a full and fair accounting? We have agreed to our former colonies receiving independent status, restored their lands and properties, and put a stop to the abuses. Other countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, England, Spain, and Portugal also maintained overseas colonies in which resources and people were exploited.”
The European Union replies, “France proclaims itself to be the country of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!” and is proud of its “Declaration of the Rights of Man”. France must be held to a higher standard than all these other nations. What is it about France and French culture that caused her to misuse the natives of her colonies in that horrid way?”
France replies, “but all the European sea-faring nations seized lands overseas and exploited the people.”
“Tell the truth,” the European Union replies, “is it the foie gras? Is it the berets? The snails? The habit of arrogance and rudeness? Or some other filthy, foul quality about France and Frenchmen in general that caused this vicious exploitation?”
The French reply, “how could the exploitation of colonies have to do with our Frenchness, when these other nations were exploiting their own colonies just as badly as we were, and it had nothing to do with foie gras or Debussy?”
“Just as badly as we were,” the E.U. replies, “So you admit that you committed foul atrocities against the peoples of Western and Central Africa.”
“We did,” the French respond, “but no more and no worse, we are sure, than the British did, or the Dutch, or the Spanish. And we have since corrected our treatment of these people.”
“The people of Western and Central Africa do not feel that you have corrected your treatment until you give a full and fair accounting with complete and total transparency of every misdeed of which your country is guilty, with a detailed explanation, names, biographical accounts of each episode of exploitation or abuse, and publishes it abroad. The President of France was involved; he must resign, too.”
“Wait!” The French gasp, “are these demands being placed on the Dutch, the British, the Spanish, and the Portugese, too, for their share of similar abuses?”
“You dare to compare yourself to other perpetrators?” the E.U. replies, “when you the French have always held yourselves apart as superior and special, leaders in manners, in education, in the arts, in civilized behavior, when instead you are foul perpetrators! Fall down! Fall down on your collective knees, O men and women of France, and beg all the world for their forgiveness of the horrors of what you and you alone - wicked, vicious and evil France - have perpetrated on the people you have victimized. Every Frenchman should hang his head in shame; every Frenchwoman should remain secluded with self-loathing. No French child should know joy or laughter until France owns up to its role in destroying the land and lives of these people in Africa.”
This pattern fits exactly the pattern of the Catholic Church sex abuse scandals and all the publicity and the demands surrounding them. It’s lopsided; it doesn’t fit, and it doesn’t add up. This is not - repeat not - about “The Children”; it’s about strangling the Church.
Effete infants shreiking, shrilling and backing into the corner like wailing victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, taking on the viewpoints of the Church’s enemies and sobbing “yes! We should all fall on our swords! Yes every one of us is to blame,” while the Church’s enemies gather like vultures around her. Stand up! Be men! Take on the Church’s enemies and meet them head on! Don’t cave and give in to evildoer’s shreiking accusations! Have a little dignity, for Christ’s sake. This is no time for acting like hysterical cowards running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
Yes horrible things were done, and were stopped, and where not stopped yet, must be stopped. But no one must be allowed to sue or slander the Holy Church into non-existence.
JIMMY ATKINS - Great job on clearing up some of the details about Archbishop Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI.
If more of us Catholic’s would cancel our subscriptions to all of the secular new media, we might put a few of them out of business.
I read “TheWeek.com” which came to the house yesterday. The Pope made their front page with his head and face in an eye-popping pose on the hard copy cover sticking out of a submarine. Cancel I will.
HERE is what the front page said: “The Vatican’s Pedophilia Scandal
Is the Catholic Church being persecuted? April 6, 2010, at 9:00 AM- A senior Vatican priest has likened outrage at sex abuse in the Catholic Church to the persecution of the Jews” The inside commentary—-all the usual suspects spewed their usual vitriol and venom.
We all need to write poison pen letters to the editors of these publications, especially in our home towns, when the editors republish this garbage.
CharlieC
The French need to get over their colonial guilt. The same people they “victimized” were themselves the oppressors of others in previous centuries. To the victor go the spoils…..
We have the same problem here in America with people inflicting guilt on the European settlers who took away the “pristine” culture of the Native Americans. Sorry, but men who go around scalping other men aren’t exactly cultural icons to model.
Before the Euros came here, the Indians, the Mayans, and the Aztecs (yes, I said Indians) were busy making war with one another and practicing ritual human sacrifice in some cases.
I think we see somewhat of an improvement, except with the legalization of abortion.
Our Lady of Gaudalupe, Protectress of the Americas, pray for us.
Whatever happened to Christian forgiveness?
Is there any way to investigate the masons as influencing the media?
Another commenter asked: “Whatever happened to Christian forgiveness?”
Interesting question.
First, we need to distinguish between (a) Christian forgiveness and (b) becoming accessory to another’s sin - by silence when it is our duty to speak; by inaction when it is our duty to act.
I can forgive the man I observe robbing the bank, but it is still my duty to pick up the phone and dial 911 to try to prevent his harming the people in the bank or escaping with other peoples’ money.
Secondly, it was once customary to view the priesthood as the highest and most dignified office there was, an office of which a man must be worthy. If a priest proved himself unworthy - if he betrayed his office, such as by gross sin involving a minor - he might be forgiven by other Christians insofar as his soul was recommended to the mercies of God, but having shown himself so unworthy, he could never be restored to the high office of priest. In medieval times, such priests were regularly sent to live in remote, strictly cloistered monasteries to live out their days in prayer and penance, with no contact with youth.
But we thought we were past medieval times. Everything can be gotten around; everything can be restored; everything can be fixed. The old, frowning, medieval views have been swept away; now we have modern scientific thought which is all about getting past our problems and moving on. That’s what the bishops and the pastors back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s believed, much to their - and our - sorry woe. No, some things cannot be gotten past, patched up, dealt with, swept under the rug, tied up with a tidy bow with a card tucked in open which is written “Christian forgiveness.” It doesn’t work, never has, and never will.
The medievals understood this in a way that we moderns have forgotten - or have wanted to pretend we have forgotten; their dusty books and scary-looking statues and “oppressive-looking” stained-glass windows are reminders that “life is real, life is earnest” that our actions have consequences, eternal as well as earthly, that there are such things as right and wrong; honor, justice, virtue, sin, violation, and that Christian forgiveness is not the same as allowing the sinner to say “it all depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.” No. For all their faults, their barbarisms, the medievals understood the definition of things and stuck by them.
The medievals understood what Christian forgiveness meant - to recommend others to the mercies of God, not to restore them to offices for which they have rendered themselves unworthy. It is we moderns who have fallen into the barbarity of failing to understand the difference.
Let me get this straight: Murphy rapes an indeterminate number of children, anywhere from 19 to 200; the victims try to get him convicted, but the police refuses to prosecute. So that’s it, then: no need for further action, no need to help those victims, no need to feel guilty. Just let the whole thing simmer on low heat, move the priest around, don’t let him get near children, just in case. It was the police’s fault, and the Catholic Church lost none of its pristine virtue.
Is that what a Catholic believes is right? You disgust me, people.
Piero,
What would be your answer? I’d be curious to know. Remember, federal statutes prevent private individuals and entities from behaving like vigilantes and interfering with the guilty party’s movements or doing anything like that.
With that in mind, I would like to hear from you a detailed plan of a series of action points in a case like this that the state won’t prosecute, and which actual ordinary Catholic Moms, Dads, soccer coaches, grocery clerks, etc. would not be legally precluded from actually putting into practice.
I’m listening. Go! And make it good.
@marion:
You want ME to tell the Catholic Church what it should have done? You want ME, a lowly atheist, with no hotline to God, to tell the divinely inspired what they should have done? You want ME, with my nonexistent sense of morality, to tell the vicars of Christ what they should have done? Well…OK.
First, it stands to reason that any institution that forbids sexual intercourse will be a magnet for perverts. Yes, there are a few priests who manage to sublimate the sexual urge, but surely no reasonable authority would expect all of them to do so. Hence, the Catholic Church should have been extremely careful with the children under its care: the stakes are just too high. A proper system of checks and supervision could have prevented so much unnecessary suffering.
Once they realised their failure, Church authorities should have done everything in their power to prevent further suffering: denounce Murphy to the local authorities, publish his picture in all newspapers, lock him up in a padded cell, force him to wear a chastity belt, anything at all that could have prevented his despicable acts. Perhaps you haven’t taken due consideration of the fact that the police did not prosecute Murphy because he was a Catholic priest, i.e. because he was part of a powerful organization. How else can you explain this failure to protect so many children from abuse? Do you think the police routinely dismiss allegations of sexual assault?
In short, if Christianity is the religion of love, any Christian would have thought of some way of preventing these horrible crimes. They didn’t, and that’s for them to live with. Don’t ask an atheist for spiritual guidance.
Thanks, Piero. No, really. Thanks.
Something told me you were going to be our go-to guy on this one, and you didn’t disappoint.
Hey! Keep it real, dude!
Having just emerged from Holy Week, it seems to me that Jesus gave a good example of what it was supposed to be all about in the washing of the feet. They were supposed to serve. In plain English the local shepherds thought that serving a fellow priest was more important than serving God’s children. Well did Jesus prophesy when he said that they might not know this now but would understand this hereafter (John, 13).
GR
@Marion:
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what to make of your reply. Engish is not my first language, so I’m not sure whether I should take it at face value or as sarcasm.
@Joseph:
Yes, that’s precisely it. The only difference being that the rich and powerful usually know they are rich and powerful, whereas Catholics think of themselves as meek and powerless.
Piero, I was answering you snarkily. I was wrong to do that, I shouldn’t have. Sorry.
All my life I have lived with girls and women who were raped by men mostly in their own homes - by their brother-in-law, or their father, an older guy in the neighborhood. Women are accustomed to hearing about this kind of quiet abuse that goes on at home and often no one dares to talk about it for years afterward. It’s horrible when married men rape young girls, and it’s horrible when unmarried Catholic priests rape young boys. But the idea that it is so very different when a father, uncle, neighbor rapes a young girl and a priest rapes a young boy strikes me as nonsensical. Or whether the victim is a young girl or a young boy. Rape is rape, no matter who does it. It’s all horrible.
What is the answer to this problem? Do I know? Should the entire Catholic religion be blamed for the minority of priests who rape boys? If that makes you happy? Should all husbands and fathers everywhere be blamed for the minority of men who their own daughters? Should I say, “All husbands and fathers of families make me sick and are brutal beasts for standing by while their neighbors rape their daughters”? You would think that is a very unreasonable thing for me to say. And you would be right.
Rape happens. It’s horrible, no matter who does it. Thank goodness, the majority of the priests guilty of these crimes are out of the priesthood or dead, from what I can gather.
@Marion:
Of course, I agree with you: I am not claiming that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on rape and abuse. What sickens me is the cover up, and the abuse of spiritual authority, if that’s the expression I want.
After reading your comments, you struck me as an intelligent and reasonable person, so I was a bit disappointed with your analogy:
“Should I say, “All husbands and fathers of families make me sick and are brutal beasts for standing by while their neighbors rape their daughters”? You would think that is a very unreasonable thing for me to say. And you would be right.” You know that doesn’t hold water.
@Marion:
Of course, I agree with you: I am not claiming that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on rape and abuse. What sickens me is the cover up, and the abuse of spiritual authority, if that’s the expression I want.
After reading your comments, you struck me as an intelligent and reasonable person, so I was a bit disappointed with your analogy:
“Should I say, “All husbands and fathers of families make me sick and are brutal beasts for standing by while their neighbors rape their daughters”? You would think that is a very unreasonable thing for me to say. And you would be right.”
You know that doesn’t hold water.
Sorry, double post. The site was playing disty tricks on me.
I don’t like being manipulated by the news media. I don’t like not getting the whole story. The whole story is that these abuses and cover-ups have gone on in Catholic as well as no-Catholic circles for years, in public schools, in private homes, too. Mothers lying to cover up for their predator boyfriends and husbands. Public school administrators transferring predator teachers to other schools and other school districts. I have been making a point of digging into these related but less prominent stories since the mid-1990s, when the media coverage about these abuses within Catholic circles really started to gain traction.
We should all be outraged when one child is harmed by a predator; we should all be outraged when one adult charged with the responsibility for a child’s welfare abandons the victimized child and covers up for the perpetrator. You are right about that, Piero. What isn’t right is that the news media have systematically emphasized stories about abuse and cover-ups in Catholic circles to so great an extent as to virtually squelch the impact of stories (which do appear, once a quarter or so. And are placed on page C-8 next to the ad for the washer-driers on sale) about the same abuses and cover-ups in other circles.
I object to abuse and cover-up in all circles. Not just in Catholic ones. And I object to the vast majority of good and decent Catholic priests having to live under a cloud of suspicion everywhere they go. If the news media published gave prominence to these stories in proportion to the frequency their occurrence, then the public would have the proper context in which to understand, and the innocent would not be blamed, while victims in other circles might be safer.
@Marion:
I agree wholeheartedly. But (and it is a big but… no pun intended), the authorities of the Catholic Church cannot defend themselves by claiming they are no worse than average. If that is indeed the case, what’s the point of being a priest? Why have a church at all? Why would I trust my confession to someone who is no better than me? Why should a child listen to lessons on morality from people who are… well, just as bad as anyone else, really?
@Joseph:
I wish I could share your enthusiasm for scripture. Unfortunately, I keep smashing against reality. For example, Numbers 31:15-18.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by “smashing against reality”? You seem to be implyingg that this passage somehow proves something, but you don’t explain what you think it proves. Guesstimating from your reply to Marion, you seem to be suggesting that the fact the Church is a fully human thing proves… what? That God does not exist? I don’t follow your logic.
“But (and it is a big but . . . no pun intended), the authorities of the Catholic Church cannot defend themselves by claiming they are no worse than average. If that is indeed the case, what’s the point of being a priest?”
In medieval times, priests who harmed children in this way would be removed from service and confined in a remote, cloistered monastery where they would never again be able to harm innocent children. Things have since become very lax, Piero, which is disgusting. I agree with you. Things have gotten better. But, Piero, even if certain bishops and priests don’t do their jobs correctly, I still have my job to do as correctly as I may. Their laxity, negligence, and dereliction of duty doesn’t excuse my own. I don’t serve priests and bishops; I serve God. The priests and bishops are God’s servants also, and He will exact a fearsome, fearsome punishment from them for every tear they have caused an innocent child to shed. I believe this with all my heart. I leave it to the LORD, and wait for HIM.
Oh, and the police, too, and a good District Attorney.
And preferably, plenty of Hell’s Angels in the local prison population. They don’t like “short-eyes”. (Men who harm children in that way.)
“Why have a church at all?”
Because it is my Father’s, my Jesus’, and my Holy Spirit’s gift to me. It is my home; my mother; my ship; my rock; my port; my refuge; and my salvation. Unfortunately bad people can come into the Church. Jesus told us this. But bad people can’t make the Church bad. Jesus made the Church, and no bad people, not Hell itself, can prevail against it.
“Why would I trust my confession to someone who is no better than me?”
Because Jesus promised that when His priests act in His behalf to heal our sins, that He would be there to give them the power to do just that. And that’s what Jesus does do. I believe this with all my heart, and so do most Catholics. And we pray for our priests, that Jesus will help them to serve Him worthily and well.
It’s like a family, Piero, no one is “better” or “worse”. We are supposed to help each other with our problems and to love one another.
“Why should a child listen to lessons on morality from people who are… well, just as bad as anyone else, really?”
Because the lessons don’t come from the people repeating them. The lessons come from our Original Designer and Creator who made us and loves us. The lessons are like a message in a bottle floating on the ocean - a series of waves carries it to shore. Wave after wave rises up, falls, and drops to the bottom, and the bottle moves shoreward to their rhythm. Depending upon the weather and the conditions of the sea, the waves may be high and the water churning and foamy, or they may be low and the sea glassy. The waves change, but the message will not change. It will be the same when it arrives to shore.
I like your questions, Piero, and I like your heart.
“Why does the church not turn these matters over to the police? WHY? Please give me some answer to that that makes a modicum of sense. ” (Jayson)
If you read the article, you will see that Murphy was reported to the police in the first place. THEY did nothing, apparently.
“Posted by Bruce Smith on Wednesday, Mar 31, 2010 12:43 PM (EST):
What’s most striking about all the abuse scandals is that the response from the Church has ALWAYS been to cover it up and if at all possible to prevent the Pedophile from facing criminal prosecution and jail. This has been true regardless of the country, regardless of whether the local Bishop dealt with the matter himself or took the issue to higher authority. It was official policy to keep these things silent, and it was enforced.
Is there any other institution that has devoted itself to protecting pedophiles? Is there another institution that has demanded victims swear to keep silent or face excommunication? No, there is not. It is therefore the Church that has singled itself out for special scrutiny and approbation. The reaction of Catholic leaders and their spokespeople should be one of shame and contrition. But instead, those who protected pedophiles and actively intervened in ways that cause HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN TO BE RAPED BY ALREADY KNOWN PEDOPHILES are protected and anyone and everyone except those who committed and abetted the most horrific crimes imaginable are blamed.
Jesus wept. ” (Quote)
BRUCE, The civil authorities were notified FIRST. They did nothing. Why no call to crucify THEM.
@Marion and Joseph:
Thank you for your kind replies. I can see you mean well, but unfortunately I also see that you are tragically, hideously mistaken. I won’t reply in detail to your responses, first because it would be off-topic, and second because I don’t want to abuse Jimmy Aiken’s hospitality; after all, he is under no obligation to allow me to post here.
So I’ll leave it at that. I thank you again for your patience.
Piero, thank you for kind words. If you would like to converse further, please let me know and I will send my e-mail address to Jimmy so he can forward it to you, OK?
Yours is not the first one taking point by point and finding no evidence of bad conscience. But now ... what do we do about getting articles like yours in the hands of MSM media so we can feel like we’re doing something? I have a list of people I emial links to so they don’t get ALL their news from CNN, MSNBC or Fox News etal. OK - WE KNOW, but what about the ignorant world?
“what do we do about getting articles like yours in the hands of MSM media?”
The MSM media is well aware of this site, and its research staffers most likely visit from time to time. From their own prior behavior, it is abundantly clear that the last thing the MSM media would want is for the general public to get their hands on this article or articles like it, because for one reason, most in the MSM media are politically and ideologically opposed to everything the Catholic Church stands for, and as George Weigle wrote, “want to see the Catholic Church strangled morally and financially”. There may well be other reasons, but that is for starters.
Bottom line: Most members of the MSM media would rather die by inches than to see Jimmy’s or other fair-minded articles on this topic receive wide circulation.
Given the perspective of what is known at the moment about the Holy Father and these instances of abuse, it seems to me that the charges on which there is the most culpability are those pertaining to emphasis and expediciality. I don’t think Joseph Ratzinger either in his role as Prefect or as Pope or the Church generally in most instances is guilty of obstruction of justice, the claims intimated in the secular press notwithstanding. Neither do I believe that the Pope and the Church are aided by the idiotic defense raised by some to the effect that pedophaelia is no more a problem in the Church than it is in world culture at large. Priests and bishops aren’t held to a standard surpassing that of the world? Neither does it help to treat the matter as though it were somehow quasi-political as some who style themselves “fans” of the Pope have done, tastelessly posting “Support the Pope” petitions on their websites and blogs. From “Support Our Troops” we effortless move to “Support The Pope”? The infantile mindset behind such stagings insults both Pope and victims. But where we have fourteen year delays in the handling of extreme cases and attribute some of the time involved to changes in the application of cannon law, we have a decided problem of emphasis, either that or something decidedly resembling cow flop. And until the Pope addresses this problem of emphasis, he looks decidedly guilty.
lots of internet ink wasted on probing subtle points-
and maybe the pope is completely innocent-
and the end of the day he is probably not the evil monster-just another human who made mistakes-
why is it so hard for Catholics to allow their leaders to at least have the human qualities of their Rock, St. Peter, a man who made mistakes, out of weakness, impulsivity, had good intentions but that didn’t stop him from betraying Christ, yet had the humility to confess (not knowing what the consequences would be-surely he had no idea Christ would make him the symbol of His visible presence on earth…
Peter just did what he knew he had to do-because God knows whats in the heart…and God took care of the rest…why won’t Catholics allow their leaders the same path to conversion….don’t they realize they are MAY BE CAUSING THEIR LEADERS ETERNAL HARM ???
by expecting them to be perfect, not allowing them to be humans who make mistakes, need repentance and conversion like the rest of us….and more than anything we need them to lead us by example as Christ led His apostles to the Cross and beyond…there was no shortcut to Salvation for Christ…how much more should we not put up roadblocks to others salvation, even if our intentions seem to us for the good of the church, the pope, the Gospel….
This man was too busy prosecuting and disciplining priests, nuns and Catholics who did not toe the Church’s line - to control power and money and support monied conservative causes.
If Christ were to have re-appeared, this man and the Church would have excommunicated him. Christ did not create nor ask to create a multi-trillion dollar business in his name.
Annika, we Catholics have no problem admitting that priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes make horrible mistakes and sin in every imaginable way. We’re not the ones who have put priests on an impossible-to-meet pedestal, expecting perfection from them in every moment of every day.
But that doesn’t mean are willing to sit here and watch them be attacked with falsehoods.
If people want to claim that the Vatican didn’t do enough in the 80s and 90s, they’ll probably get a lot of agreement. If people want to claim that the Pope, as Prefect of the CDF, should have done something in 1985 about a case that didn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the CDF, then they should expect some push-back.
BODY OF CHRIST UNITE!
It is unbelievable the attacks made by the media against the bishop of Rome.Benedict the 16th is our good shepherd. He serves the Church and the world by the authority granted by God. What has happened to our nation? Not so long ago love of God and country was as American as apple pie and baseball. Yet in these days, a statue of Jesus Christ is COVERED by the current President with the excuse it may offend someone! A new coin has been minted with the words “In God We Trust” REMOVED.
Numerous court cases around the country regarding the legality of the Ten Commandments and prayer at public meeting underscore the battle of our times. Again there are those trying to get “One Nation, Under God” STRIPPED from our pledge of allegiance. Enough is enough. For too long, Christians have sat on their hands and been silent. God forgive us! Our culture has been overrun by the “many paths to heaven” crowd.
We need to make a stand for what we know is right. Our mind must be set on the WORD not the world. Romans 12:2 - Live it always. Not just for an hour on Sunday.
Come quickly, Lord Jesus. Amen.
I love the Holy Father. I trust him completely and I know he is a good man. All you have to do is read anything he’s written or open your eyes and see how he is cleaning up the Church. Why else would the NYT and atheist Richard Dawkins and friends be after him? He’s a threat to atheistic liberals everywhere…even those who call themselves Catholic. Thank you, Mr. Akin, for giving us “just the facts”. That this scandal was dredged back up around Easter and right after the American bishops pushed back on the abortion language in the health care bill is no coincidence. They’ve been so boldly anti-Catholic for so long, why should we care what they write? The NYT is not even good enough to line a birdcage. They are a miserable, washed-up, nightmarishly biased failure… and like satan, they are lashing out wildly in their last hour.
http://www.reformation.com/
http://www.realcatholictv.org/documents/vort-2010-04-13.pdf
The rate of abuse is higher among Protestant clergy and also Public school teachers. Heck, before we came into the Church, our last faith community had two child molesters (one, a children’s minister) and a serial adulter as a married minister who was moved from congregation to congregation preying on women with low self esteem. The faith community before that one had an adulterous married minister as well. We’ve had a couple of very public child molesters teaching in our public school system in my county as well.
Not that this data excuses what these homosexual priests did to the children…that is something that especially the American Church has to come to grips with, but the press time devoted to the sex scandal in the Church is way, way over blown. It’s media bias…pure and simple. This is a problem and one that hopefully is being addressed within the Church…one that the Pope has been attending to more agressively than just about anyone else. We really need to decide if we stand with Peter or are we going to be schismatics preying on the Holy Father who has been cast as the scapegoat for child molesters.
http://www.PutThePopeInJail.com
@Annika: I have no problem admitting that our bishops and priests are human like the rest of us and fully capable of making mistakes. I would just like to hold them accountable for the actual mistakes that they actually make, and not simply run amok, blaming them for things they did not do.
Not all priests and bishops are involved in this scandal. It’s all over our fallen world, but it’s not every priest and bishop. It’s a small percentage. Why can’t some people acknowledge that? Why slam the Church for what a small percentage of men have done? Why not just slam the ones who did it? Even better, why not just deal with them (not slam them) and with their victims. We need to be praying for everyone involved and for everyone harmed, including the innocent who are being treated as “guilty by association”.
Well said, Lee.
I think we should have at least a two-pronged front here.
I agree that God will deal with the “filth” in the Church. We all need to call for openness and dealing with the facts. I do believe that the American Catholic Church realizes this.
But as Catholics, we are to call for justice too in reporting and prosecuting present abuse crisis in SOCIETY.
Prosecute and report all equally. We are not second-class citizens, Joseph.
As Catholics, we shouldn’t tuck our tail between our legs and let lies, distortions, ommissions, and half-truths dominate the news out there.
Here’s the problem which how the Church has handled this. . . Even if the crimes were not involving the rape of children, what the priests have done is commit a mortal sin—breaking their vows, having sex outside of marriage, and often practicing sodomy.
In order to be forgiven, they must “repent” of their sins and ask for forgiveness. One who continue to commit the same atrocities has not repented. Further, I know of no cases where the priest involved has asked forgiveness from his victims prior to being tried in a secular court.
The real crime is that the Church leadership has allowed these men to continue saying the mass, hearing confessions and acting as the intermediary for God. A mortal sin is believed to be so grievous that it separates the sinner from God—at least spiritually.
Therefore, these men were not qualified to say the mass and consecrate the host, this was known by the leadership and excused.
This seems to point to a loss of confidence in what the Church teaches regarding sin and the Catholics of the world must ask why there are two sets of spiritual law. . . shouldn’t priests be held to a higher standard?
Hello Leslie,
Can you give the names of some of the priests in the 1990s and forward who were allowed to continue saying Mass, hearing confessions, et. al. while being formally accused of sexual abuse?
<quote>Hello Leslie,
Can you give the names of some of the priests in the 1990s and forward who were allowed to continue saying Mass, hearing confessions, et. al. while being formally accused of sexual abuse? </quote>
So it wasn’t a mortal sin before 1995? I’m not sure of your point, could you please clarify? Is there some date where it wasn’t a problem?
It doesn’t matter if it happened in 1985, 1995 or 2005, because this is a matter of the Lord’s. It involves violating the vows of His representatives on Earth, and is a far more serious spiritual breach because it carries the additional burden of sacrilege. This offense is enough to have one excommunicated.
It doesn’t matter if they were having sex with children, adult females or each other. They made a vow of chastity between themselves and Almighty God, they are consecrated to the Lord, and to violate that is not only a mortal sin, but to commit a sacrilege.
A mortal sin is a spiritual separation between man and God. How can a priest consecrate the host when he has committed a mortal sin? How can a priest commit sacrilege and then be qualified to hear confession? What about last rites issued by these men when they are so far removed from the Lord?
We all know that no one has truly repented who keeps committing the same grievous sin.
And what does is say about the Bishops and other spiritual leaders who not only created an atmosphere that allowed these individuals to sin, but to continue to act as God’s representative when clearly they had committed sacrilege and were unqualified to do so? These Bishops lied to their diocese every time they put one of these priests in a new parish, because they were promising that these men are able to consecrate the host.
Couples were married by these priests believing they were creating a covenant with God. How can that happen if the priest has committed a mortal sin?
If a priest can commit sodomy, break the vow of chastity and still celebrate the Mass, why can’t a lay person who has no vow to break? If a lay person cannot consecrate the host, then why can a sodomite priest do it?
This is an indictment of all Church leadership who failed to follow the rules which are given to us by God. This is God’s law which tells us about mortal sin, is it not? The priests vows are with the Almighty, are they not? Doesn’t God command us to repent of these sins and ask forgiveness?
No man is above God’s law. Dark secrets are of Satan, not of the Lord. These priests need to beg forgiveness from their victims and should also face secular court trials. Anyone else in a position of authority that made this possible MUST confess his involvement and repent as well. They should also be tried in secular court. The Lord never commands us to lie and deceive others, especially those entrusted to His spiritual care. We, as Catholics, must root out evil even within God’s Church.
Confession of our sins, repentance and righting our wrongs. . . This is what God demands of everyone of us and that applies to priests, bishops and yes, even the Pope.
Either the Catholic Church stands firmly for these things, or it no longer speaks the Word of God.
Hello Leslie,
We could go back all the way to Judas to find priests who failed in their high calling. This is nothing new.
My point in your naming cases in the 90s is this: the U.S. Catholic Church has made tremendous progress in eliminating sexual abuse among its ranks.
In 2009 the Church had 6 credible cases. That is six too many, but with our hundreds of thousand of school children, altar boys and girls, confessions, and 68 million Catholics to boot, that is PROGRESS.
Sexual abuse in our society wasn’t truly studied until the 1950s, and then the 60s sexual revolution came along with the Kinsey Report affecting psycho-babbble, and we got some skewed information for a few decades.
The sad fact is that abusers in public schools, Catholic settings, and in families in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, were often sent to therapy and we were told by the experts that they could be rehabilitated. Well, they can’t, and it took the sorry experience of the Catholic Church to figure that out.
The Catholic Church in America has a handle on this, finally. We still have a way to go.
But as far as sexual abuse in the public schools, and families, it’s still rampant.
So, Leslie, yes, it’s always been a mortal sin. But please don’t be in the business of judging those who in good faith were told that these perps could be rehabilitated. Yes, things should have been handled better, and beginning in the 90s they were.
Also, if a priest in mortal sin performs a marriage, baptism, confession, etc. these sacraments are still valid. They do not count on the impeccability of the priest, but on the promise of God to work through his ministers.
So, do you have any names from the 90s, or are all these cases you’re speaking of from decades ago?
I will concede that the US Church has made tremendous strides in the last decade, but they did not do so until the problem had been made public, and sadly, became quite expensive.
The Catholic Church is more than just the US. All humans are our brothers and sisters, so whatever crimes were committed against any of them should be our concern, not just those on our own soil. The Catholic Church is not just the Vatican, or the US organization, it is an organic body made up of all its members. If we are expected to protect it from outside aggression, surely we must protect it from evil within its walls.
A Vatican report from 2001 states that Rome was aware priests from at least 23 countries have been sexually abusing nuns, mostly in Africa and India. It would seem the sexual sinning still continues after the strides made in the 1990s. I don’t think God makes a distinction between an American or Pakistani, nor do I believe that crimes committed against one group, whether it be women, children or the poor, are more excusable than others.
I do not want to stand before the Lord and explain how I ignored the suffering of others because they were removed from my sight. I certainly don’t want to defend how I participated in an effort to silence victims of abuse.
Please note that I am not making a distinction between sex with children, adult females or other males as all of it is a against the vow of chastity. That is the crux of the issue. Either repeated mortal sins are grounds for defrocking, or we should just allow anyone to be a priest and not hold them to any standards.
Any form of treatment is completely separate from the issue of sin, repentance and forgiveness.
Again, it seems rather convenient to ignore that these priests violated the vow of chastity and committed a sacrilege because they were in need of mental health treatment. It also seems convenient that we should ignore that those in a position of authority were so easily convinced by professionals that sinning could be cleansed by therapy. This is not just a mental disorder, it is a disease of their soul.
Judging goes both ways—whether they are guilty or innocent. The idea of ignoring these sins and the failure of the leadership to remove priests that repeatedly broke their vows is the same issue that caused the problem in the first place, this idea of infallibility, or at least being above scrutiny. Telling members they should not question under the guise of “judging” is simply placing one person above the rules. God’s Church should be able to bear the harsh light of scrutiny from the members and the world at large because no man is above God Almighty.
I find it troublesome that the Church seems to be more concerned about secular repercussions such as civil trials and fines rather than incurring the wrath of the Lord. I also find it equally bothersome that many members believe that by bringing these issues into the public, pressuring the leadership to confess their sins, repent and make reparations to those harmed will somehow damage the organization.
If the Catholic Church is truly God’s organization, it can withstand even this.
Peace be with you.
Great post, Leslie. I will respond accordingly, but it’s a busy Saturday.
I agree that the Catholic Church is not just the U.S. Catholic body. That’s why I hope that the rest of the world’s Catholic leaders take a clue from our experience and the progress we’ve made on preventing sexual abuse. I believe more accountability must be had, especially of bishops who protected abusers. I think O’Malley should be in a monastery in the least, and on trial civilly for the most.
About your Vatican report, I do think that serious attempts are being made to stop the abuse. We have 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide, and from the beginning we’ve had problems.
I’m reading Corinthians, which talks about an early Catholic who was living in an incestual relationship. Might have been consentual, but it was immoral. The Church did move to correct that abuse.
I don’t think it’s “convenient” when a bishop in good faith puts a priest in treatment in the 70s, and has been told by the priest and his doctors that he had completed rehabilitation and has recovered. Surely, the priest should have been watched, and if he did offend again, I think common sense tells you he should have been gone.
It’s not a criminal offense to listen to the latest medical information of the day and take the advice of doctors.
I realize that not all cases were like this, and for others there were clearly red flags. And the Church failed those young people pitifully.
That’s why Ratzinger spoke of cleansing the Church of the “filth” in its ranks. He is doing that.
I believe more accountability must be had, especially of bishops who protected abusers. I think O’Malley should be in a monastery in the least, and on trial civilly for the most.
About your Vatican report, I do think that serious attempts are being made to stop the abuse. We have 1.1 billion Catholics worldwide, and from the beginning we’ve had problems.
I believe you are addressing these issues from a secular point of view and you may be missing what I am saying.
My point has been, all along, that these are mortal sins which have been ignored even when the priest has been shown to be unrepentant. It doesn’t matter if the Church is trying to end abuse, what it should be doing is addressing the broken vows, and the sacrilege. It should be addressing that those who were separated from God Almighty were allowed to say mass and participate in all the sacraments.
Let the civil authorities deal with the crime, let the Church deal with the sin.
They haven’t.
Stopping the abuse is a completely separate issue. What I am addressing is the crisis within our Church which ignores God’s law, which allows those who have violated the vow of chastity, who have committed a sacrilege to consecrate the host, to hear confession, to bind couples in marriage, to give the last rites. I am also talking about the sin by the leadership which ignored this.
Either the individual who is officiating these sacraments must meet certain qualifications or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways and say that yes, you must be chaste to represent God on Earth, but if you’re not, if you have sex with children repeatedly, you are a sodomite, or you are lustful, then everything you do is still valid. Because this wishy-washy approach undermines the concept of God’s representative on Earth. Why not let everyone say Mass? Are there no requirements?
This is what the Vatican must address. Either those covenants made with God are taken seriously, or they are not. Clearly, the Vatican has been telling Catholics one thing, but certainly not believing it is true themselves.
That has been my point all along. How can the Church leadership allow someone who commits mortal sin—which by definition means spiritually separated from God—to take part in the sacraments?
Either these concepts they teach have meaning for everyone, not just the rank and file members, or they are a lie. Either there is such a thing as mortal sin that separates us from the Lord, that defiling a sacred object is a sacrilege and that one must be chaste in order to consecrate the host, or not.
Which is it?
Leslie,
How do you know they are in mortal sin? That’s where you and I cannot judge. Even O’Malley could have gone to confession which takes away mortal sin.
Won’t God deal with him, instead of you and I guessing about the state of his soul?
I didn’t hear anyone’s confession, and unless you’re Fr. Leslie, you haven’t either.
Leslie states, “My point has been, all along, that these are mortal sins which have been ignored even when the priest has been shown to be unrepentant. It doesn’t matter if the Church is trying to end abuse, what it should be doing is addressing the broken vows, and the sacrilege. It should be addressing that those who were separated from God Almighty were allowed to say mass and participate in all the sacraments.”
Leslie, can you give some names of priests who, all along, has been unrepentant?
I’d like to see some examples, ‘cause that’s a pretty serious allegation.
Still waiting for facts to back up the allegations, huh, liseux? Yeah, well, I’ve noticed over the years that those indulging in the most scorching calumnies don’t spend nearly as much energy divulging their sources, calumny being, by definition, false accusation. Sounds like those allegations spring more from fury than from reason. Truly, I’m amazed at how many people have nothing but answers and advice for the Church and the Pope. Hindsight is 20/20, I suppose. So much for humility and compassion.
If I make a claim, I try to back it up with name, verse, and statistics where needed, Lee.
I’d say so much for humility and compassion, and also so much for forgiving 70 x 7. We can’t cast people into mortal sin when we don’t know their hearts! The only person I knew who could do that in my lifetime was Padre Pio!
Leslie thinks I’m viewing things from a secular point of view, but I think her/his unforgiveness and judgementalism is also from a secular point of view.
Interesting, you asked for evidence that these sexual violations were continuing after the 1990s, and when I cited a Vatican study from 2001, you move on to the next issue. You completely ignore that nuns are being raped and some are being encouraged to get an abortion. And this does not qualify as a mortal sin?
I wonder how Catholics would be commenting on these issues if they were occurring in the Mormon Church?
Won’t God deal with him, instead of you and I guessing about the state of his soul?
Why do any of us need to go to confession then?
Indeed, the priest’s behavior is the subject of interest to all members of “the Church”, as the violation of the vow is a sin against our religion.
The violation of the vow of chastity is always a sin against religion; it constitutes also a sacrilege in a person who has received Holy orders, or in a religious, because each of these persons has been consecrated to God by his vow: his vow forms part of the public worship of the Church.
Further, the priest has consecrated himself to the service of God Almighty and the violation is a personal sacrilege, defined as:
by any sin against the vow of chastity on the part of those who are consecrated to God
And finally, we have the conditions for mortal sin:
“Those sins are judged to be mortal which contain in themselves some grave disorder in regard to God”
So, I would assume that sodomizing a child would constitute a violation of the vows of chastity, a sin against our religion, a sacrilege and therefore, a mortal sin. Since a sacrilege has been committed and the vow of chastity which consecrates the priest to the service of God, then the violation of the vows is a separation from God and therefore, a mortal sin.
Repentance includes a desire to change the behavior. A priest who continues to commit these grave sins has not changed. A child’s clothes do not fly off their body and the priest find himself in a compromising position—there are dozens of small and large decisions that lead to this behavior.
Since many of these priests were relocated after subsequent allegations, they were clearly unrepentant. Further, since the Church leadership assisted in allowing these priests to continue to sin, there is a question as to whether their actions are grave as well since the contributed to a sacrilege.
While I understand the misguided notion to defend the Church from criticism, I believe that if it is an organization of the Lord, it can withstand such scrutiny.
So, Leslie, yes, it’s always been a mortal sin. But please don’t be in the business of judging those who in good faith were told that these perps could be rehabilitated. Yes, things should have been handled better, and beginning in the 90s they were.
A few posts ago, you said it is a mortal sin, now you’re not sure?
liseux, I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn’t waiting for facts and such from you because you weren’t making accusations. I meant, are you still waiting for facts to come from others.
Leslie, what’s this about nuns being raped? I don’t think you’re interested in subjecting the Church to scrutiny. I think you have something else in mind altogether. I for one am not defending the Church from criticism. I am defending her from attacks that are unfair and ungrounded. Terrible things happened and I admitted that when I found out about it. But I’m not hearing criticism from some people. I’m hearing some fairly furious attacks. Not the same thing.
(Just want to mention, the Church is not “an organization of the Lord”. She is the Body of Christ. She is the Church of Christ. Some of her members are on the earth, others have gone to be with Him in Heaven. We are not an organization.)
Leslie, what’s this about nuns being raped? I don’t think you’re interested in subjecting the Church to scrutiny. I think you have something else in mind altogether. I for one am not defending the Church from criticism. I am defending her from attacks that are unfair and ungrounded. Terrible things happened and I admitted that when I found out about it. But I’m not hearing criticism from some people. I’m hearing some fairly furious attacks. Not the same thing.
You know, if you were truly interested in being fair, you would have simply searched for the terms Vatican, nuns raped, Africa. But you didn’t. You instead have wrongly attributed malice toward me and assumed I was lying and simply attacking the Church.
“The Vatican acknowledged Tuesday a damning report that some priests and missionaries were forcing nuns to have sex with them, and were in some cases committing rape and forcing the victims to have abortions.
Some nuns were forced to take the contraceptive pill, the report cited in the Rome daily la Repubblica said.
The Vatican said the issue was restricted to a certain geographical area, but the report cited cases in 23 countries, including the United States, Brazil, the Philippines, India, Ireland and Italy.
‘The stories are horrifying and disturbing to say the least,’ said Bill Ryan, spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.”
http://www.aegis.com/news/re/2001/RE010336.html
When you participate in denying these issues exist, you foster an atmosphere where victims are not believed and the problems persist. You would rather accuse me of lying rather than spending 20 seconds verifying the facts for yourself.
If nothing else, you should be honest and admit you really don’t know about all the accusations leveled against the Church. Some are quite vile.
Perhaps you and some others would like to argue that impregnating a nun and then forcing her to have an abortion isn’t a mortal sin. . .
Leslie, do you have the name of the priest accused of raping? Do you have evidence that he is still saying Mass?
These are horrendous deeds.
As for mortal sins, Leslie, I can say that the priest committed one if he abuses a child or rapes a nun. These men don’t deserve to be operating as priests. You might be in the habit of judging someone’s soul or eternal destination; I try to avoid that and look at ACTIONS.
So far, you’ve just said nuns were raped. You haven’t given proof that the priests were left to keep saying Mass.
Sounds like you want to hear the bad news, not the good.
Lee, I understood you. I agree with you that Leslie’s words are more about nailing the Church than about misdeeds those in the Church have committed.
But neither YOU nor I can say it is still on his soul and if he has gone to sacramental confession.
That last sentence in my post should have been placed earlier and directed to Fr. Leslie.
It’s a hectic morning around here.
I don’t have to produce the names of the priests. The Vatican acknowledged that it was true and occurred in 23 countries. We have nuns saying it is true—or are you accusing them of lying?
Also cited is the case of a mother superior who repeatedly complained to her local bishop that priests in the diocese had made 29 of her nuns pregnant
The bishop, according to the report, subsequently relieved her of her duties.
Were priests still celebrating the Mass? Thank you for asking.
Among the abuses detailed is the case of a nun being forced to have an abortion by the priest who impregnated her. She later died and he officiated at her requiem mass.
What a conundrum, eh? Either priests ARE raping nuns, or nuns are falsely accusing priests of raping them—but either way, the Vatican has done little to address it since the first report was issued over seven years ago, and the allegations of rape continue today.
You’re not excusing false accusations or the raping of nuns are you? Do you approve of this occurring and the Vatican not stopping it immediately?
Leslie, I’m not doubting that it occurred. If what you say is correct, it is horrible and should be straightened out.
I’d like to see the report. Do you have a link to it?
I am quite interested in this information and how it is being handled by the Vatican.
I’ve found that there are always more sides than one to these stories. Could be even worse than you say. Obviously, you are quoting from some source. Do you mind sharing it? I can then do further research from there.
I did provide the source several posts ago and I’m not inclined to go find it since you’ve just admitted you haven’t been reading the evidence I’ve so generously provided. Pearls. . .
I guess you simply assumed that I must be wrong, or making it up. Why not do a little Google search, eh? Africa, nuns, raped, Catholic, Vatican. It would appear to me you’re not very proactive in determining the truth of matters, only condemning information you don’t like as being false through some measure of blind obedience. Frankly, I would be embarrassed.
“The Vatican acknowledged Tuesday a damning report that some priests and missionaries were forcing nuns to have sex with them, and were in some cases committing rape and forcing the victims to have abortions.”
You might also want to consider why more Catholics aren’t aware of this.
I don’t condone the raping of women or children, or any organization which hides this fact, and participates in allowing it to continue. Nor will I contribute to such defiling. I don’t care who is behind the organization, even if it is His Holiness. I find it particularly offensive when Catholics attack OTHER Catholics for pointing out that these crimes against the most innocent in our society is reprehensible.
Instead, you people would rather discuss whether the Catholic Church is a organization or a religion, or participate in passive-aggressive dialogue about motivations and intents. It seems to me that shows a lack of interest in rectifying the problem.
Those of us who criticize the Church leadership for failing to hold our religion to the highest standards to be worthy of the title of God’s Church are not the problem, and mean-spirited attacks of us only deflect attention away from finding a solution.
I’m interested in it stopping and those responsible be held accountable. What are you interested in? Oh yeah, proof that you will ignore anyway.
Sorry, Leslie, I deal with facts, not the proffered evidential opinion of a blogger.
You obviously are quoting a website WITHOUT giving credit, which is stealing, Les. Do you not want to give the source of your posts because they are from liberal website?
As far as giving the info. in an earlier post- hogwash.
You never gave names, places, orders, etc. Just continents….
If you can’t do better than that, then it’s pretty much giving false witness. 8th commandment….
That’s 1/5 of the commandments you’re stretching, Les.
I did provide the URL, you have been too lazy to read my posts.
In fact, anyone following this conversation can easily find my attribution to the article in question.
I guess that demonstrates your level of scholarly research.
Good luck with that.
If you can’t do better than that, then it’s pretty much giving false witness. 8th commandment….
That’s 1/5 of the commandments you’re stretching, Les.
Would this be an example of “unforgiveness and judgementalism”? Didn’t you say, “That’s where you and I cannot judge,” but yet here you are judging me? How does that work? I shouldn’t judge a priest raping a child as committing a mortal sin, but you’re free to determine that I’ve broken a commandment?
How do you not choke on the hypocrisy?
My name is not “Les” and it is considered poor netiquette to call someone by something other than their name.
Leslie, I can judge actions…. so can you. What we cannot judge is the state of a person’s soul. Did you go to catechism in the 70s? Some people do repent and go to confession.
I think we’re way beyond netiquette if you’re calling me a hypocrite, which we both are, by the way.
I see your URL, and I apologize for not seeing it earlier. I haven’t handled this discussion well, and I apologize for that too.
I do believe that these rapes have happened and are criminal.
I also believe that the Church is working to prevent them from happening.
Thank you, Leslie, for pointing out that this is happening.
I do intend to continue following what is happening with the nuns.
Matthew 18:6—But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42—And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luke 17:2—It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2008/05_06/CrimenEnglish.pdf
Crimen Sollicitationis, a Vatican document from 1962 sent to all bishops and church leadership, states that a priest caught violating his vow of chastity with a child is not automatically defrocked, but a victim who violates the secrecy of the Church tribunal is subject to automatic excommunication.
This left no room for victims to address the crimes with law enforcement.
Leslie: I thought priests took vows of celibacy, not mere chastity. All Christians are called to be chaste but not all are called to celibacy. I also admitted I didn’t know about the accusation of rape of nuns. That’s why I asked, What’s all this about the rape of nuns? It’s clear to me that you are enjoying yourself by attacking the Church. It’s also clear to me that these arguments are serving as distractions from what we should be doing, which is looking for real information, helping victims (including the majority of clergy who are innocent), and praying for the whole world and the Church. Peace be to you, Leslie. I see no purpose in continuing to argue.
Why are you implying that the information I have provided is not real?
That is a lie and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Justice DOES help victims. I am sure that Jesus would approve of me seeking to protect the littlest ones from sexual predators and seeing that their abusers are prevented from harming others even if that means they go to prison. Certainly our leadership has failed in this regard. You are free to disagree, of course.
It has now come to light that the Vatican has threatened the victims with automatic excommunication for breaking the oath of secrecy, but priests who sodomize children are not automatically defrocked for breaking their vows. This, too, is a great injustice and as a Catholic, I am deeply troubled by this inequity.
You might excuse this, but I see this as an enormous problem. And just because I point that out does not mean I am not serving my brothers and sisters. Do not try to judge what I do from a few posts on an anonymous forum. Do not try to insinuate that I do not pray, or attempt to help innocent clergy. Your attempts to silence me are exactly the attitude which created this problem in the first place.
Secrecy is of the Devil.
I believe we are called to help ALL victims of the clergy’s sexual abuse, which are not only those who suffered directly, but also those who are members of the Church. Because each time one of these priests abuses a child, each time that crime is covered up, and each time a member seeks to minimize these sins, the Church suffers.
Every Catholic has suffered because of this sexual abuse. We continue to suffer when members try to cover up the problem.
I understand that people like you very much want this problem to just go away. It is uncomfortable to think that children are being sodomized and nuns are being raped, and even more distressing to realize that our leaders have not only been hiding this and threatening victims with excommunication but creating an atmosphere where it can flourish.
I love my Church and I do not want to see anyone do it harm—either by word or deed. As a Catholic, I will not condone these actions by participating in secrecy on the matter, nor will I pressure others to remain silent. I believe that God’s true Church can bear the scrutiny under the harsh light of truth. I believe as members, we should demand something greater than hiding these crimes because it is unpleasant.
Anyone who is a good Christian MUST find the rape of child as objectionable and must be spiritually strong enough and brave enough to stand up for the victims, REGARDLESS OF WHO IS RESPONSIBLE. . .even if it is the Pope. To fail to demand that these abusers be brought to justice is to be complicit in their crimes and undermines the authority of the Church. It does a great injustice to the innocent priests who have kept their vows, who do wish to serve their congregations, but are cast in suspicion because we do not ferret out the evil within our own walls.
Those of us who love the Church want it restored as a place of spiritual renewal, safe haven for all and above all else—a vehicle for Divine truth. Those that don’t surely want to keep an atmosphere of secrecy and darkness because they do not believe the Church is strong enough to survive.
I choose the light. I believe that if we confess our sins, that God will restore us. And that includes the bishops, cardinals and even Pope Benedict.
If we don’t, I suspect our Church will end, and rightfully so, because we are no longer worthy to receive all the blessings of the Lord.
The first thing the Vatican must do is to promise all Catholics who were sworn to secrecy under Crimen Sollicitationis (The Crime of Solicitation letter) that they will not be excommunicated for providing testimony against an abusive priest.
To threaten victims with excommunication is reprehensible, and yet still remains as official policy.
Leslie, who tried to silence you? Really, I think your raving has hampered your ability to hear what anyone else is actually saying. Enjoy yourself. I’m not going to track comments on this post anymore. It’s a waste of time.
There you go again, refusing to read PROOF:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2008/05_06/CrimenEnglish.pdf
Anyone involved in the investigation of a priest, including the victim, is sworn to an oath of secrecy. They break that oath, they are AUTOMATICALLY excommunicated. This include reporting the crime to authorities.
A priest can rape a child, commit a mortal sin (per Pope John Paul, by the way), and not be defrocked. They can do this repeatedly and remain within the Church.
It’s amazing to me how anyone can defend this.
Anyone involved in the investigation of a priest, including the victim, is sworn to an oath of secrecy. They break that oath, they are AUTOMATICALLY excommunicated. This include reporting the crime to authorities.
False
There are real criticisms to be leveled at CS. But the notion that it excommunicates victims or those who report the crime is just not so. Nothing is helped—including the plight of victims—by passing along false hearsay.
Also, for clarity’s sake, CS ceased to be policy in 2003.
Crimen Sollicitationis
Paragraph 11:
“. . . each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way. . . is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication. . .”
This means that for 40 years, every person involved with investigating these crimes against children were under oath with the threat of excommunication. While the Vatican may not be using this exact document now, they have not released the victims from the oath of secrecy for the past four decades.
I’m not sure why members of the Church think it’s somehow helping the situation by covering up these issues and denying they exist. I see no benefit to anyone to continue an atmosphere of secrecy, but then again, I’m not party to the guilt.
Obviously, your comments are a deliberate act to obfuscate the truth, when I provided a link to a .pdf of the document which proves you are wrong.
Either you chose not to read it and still comment as if you had, or you were aware of the contents and chose to lie about it. Either way, it is despicable to do that to another.
Interesting how you sound just like the other posters who have wrongly claimed that nuns weren’t raped (when the Vatican admitted it was true), that raping children wasn’t a mortal sin (when Pope John Paul declared it was), and now you’re trying to lie about CS not providing for the excommunication of victims who talk about it.
At what point will you admit you were wrong and your accusations against me were false?
Are you a member of the clergy? It sure seems that way when you spout this nonsense of “defend the faith” at any cost.
Sorry, Leslie, but you are working with an old document that has been replaced with a newer one.
Please read this current blog by Mark Shea:
“Fact: this is just not true. Last things first, Crimen Solicitationis was superceded by 2003 (due largely to the work of one Joseph Ratzinger), so the claim that it is “still official policy” is bunk. But far more important is the claim that it “automatically excommunicated” witnesses for reporting on or testifying to abuse. As Sean Murphy points out, this meme is the coinage of Christopher Hitchens’ brain, not a brain known for sane or accurate readings of any documents pertaining to religious belief. Hitchens, it will be recalled, is an almost preternaturally sloppy reader of religious documents. As David Hart notes about God is not Great:
On matters of simple historical and textual fact, moreover, Hitchens’ book is so extraordinarily crowded with errors that one soon gives up counting them. Just to skim a few off the surface: He speaks of the ethos of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as “an admirable but nebulous humanism,” which is roughly on a par with saying that Gandhi was an apostle of the ruthless conquest and spoliation of weaker peoples. He conflates the histories of the first and fourth crusades. He repeats as fact the long discredited myth that Christians destroyed the works of Aristotle and Lucretius, or systematically burned the books of pagan antiquity, which is the very opposite of what did happen. He speaks of the traditional hostility of “religion” (whatever that may be) to medicine, despite the monastic origins of the modern hospital and the involvement of Christian missions in medical research and medical care from the fourth century to the present. He tells us that countless lives were lost in the early centuries of the Church over disputes regarding which gospels were legitimate (the actual number of lives lost is zero). He asserts that Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were burned alive at the stake, although both men died of natural causes. He knows that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are a late addition to the text, but he imagines this means that the entire account of the Resurrection is as well. He informs us that it is well known that Augustine was fond of the myth of the Wandering Jew, though Augustine died eight centuries before the legend was invented. And so on and so on (and so on).
Who better then, to turn to as your Sure and Certain Guide to the interpretation of an obscure Vatican document that many bishops were unaware even existed? Yet, mysteriously, Hitchens’ reading has become Received Wisdom for many people who now live in the strange delusion that they must have, at some point, read Crimen Sollicitationis , even though they could not cite five words from it if their lives depended on it. They seem to get this notion from Hitchens, who only cites about five words in order to buttress his claim that the sole purpose of the document was to tell victims, “If you talk, you will go to Hell.” Yet common sense should move us to ask, “Why are there 39 pages of detailed discussion about how to proceed with reporting abuse, inquiring into the merits of the case, and kicking pervy priests down the stairs if the standing policy was simply to muzzle witnesses from so much as reporting abuse?” If the sole purpose of the document was simply to prevent the reportage on crimes from ever happening and to muzzle witnesses under the threat of the fires of hell, it would appear that the other 39 pages of the document were rather superfluous.
Here’s the real scoop:
Crimen Sollicitationis did not threaten excommunication of people who revealed “child rape and torture” by priests. On the contrary: it imposed not only a duty to denounce such crimes (and the lesser offence of solicitation) to the bishop, but the automatic excommunication of anyone who knowingly failed to do so.13
Officials investigating or involved in proceedings pertaining to these “unspeakable crimes” were required to take an oath of perpetual secrecy, on pain of excommunication.14 This was the passage perverted by Mr. Hitchens’ selective quotation and extraordinary accusation. An oath of secrecy was also to be given to witnesses in the proceedings, but was not, it seems, to be backed by a threat of excommunication.15 Analogous oaths of secrecy and confidentiality are taken by secular professionals and officials. Confidentiality is usually maintained during secular investigations, and secular proceedings – Family Court hearings for example – sometimes proceed in secret.16”
And there’s more at:http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pseu/
“. . . each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way. . . is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication. . .” Please tell me how this does not apply to the victims.
While oaths of secrecy are not the issue, it is the threat of excommunication. Do you have any examples of victims which were part of an investigation that were NOT required to take an oath with the threat of excommunication? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
There is only ONE oath given for each person involved in the investigation to swear in the document. And each person is sworn, ”. . . even for the most urgent and the most serious cause [even] for the purpose of a greater good, commit anything against this fidelity to the secret, unless. . . a dispensation has been given to me by the Supreme Pontiff.”
Since this English version is a 39-page document dealing with all aspects of the investigation, it should be no problem for you to point out any other oath the victims were to make, you know, the ones without the threat of excommunication? So, please, post that because I would like to see the oath you’re referring to which DOESN’T carry the threat.
Or, you can slink away, have one of the other sock puppets come in and argue a new issue. That seems to be your M.O. here and when proven wrong, you leave for a few comments until one of your compadres gets owned.
Maybe you would like to post where the Vatican has rescinded this threat?
Again, you’re wrong. But I’m glad you admitted that the victims were required to make an oath. Let’s look at section 52, which I think is particularly telling: “In every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth.” How do you defend that? Priests are sworn to be honest. Lovely.
Further, your claim that Bishops would simply ignore official communication from the Vatican is patently ABSURD. I can’t believe you’re trying to float such an argument. What happened? Did they just throw them in the trash like a advertising circular from the grocery story? Seriously? You’re getting desperate.
. . .but don’t worry, this is where you run away instead of responding to my questions.
Randy, do you have any evidence for your accusation?
Hmmm…. guess Randy’s comment got taken away. It was a bit over the top!
I guess you’re too afraid to answer the challenges put for to you.
pugi ako !!!
“In the mid 1970s his victims complained to the police, but this did not result in a trial.”
So the police haven’t been better than the church.
Thanks for another insightful article, Jimmy.
prezentacje maturalne
Usted tiene ciertamente algunas de las opiniones y puntos de vista agradables. www.ncregister.com ofrece una nueva mirada a la materia.
The pope is no better than the worst priest in his diocese; and this applies to any bishop. I am a traditional Catholic, and you blind Catholics who take up for then Card. Ratzinger are like sheep being led to the slaughter.
You are just as guilty as this rotten pope. May, and I know you will…. both rot in hell. I hope you are raped by one of these !@#$%.
Why that last comment is so un-Christ like! I can’t believe that it passed the moderators.
Why can’t the media outlets be sued for libel?
What about the victums? There lives will be ruined forever while here on earth.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.