I’d like to thank The Anchoress and Andrew Sullivan for linking my previous piece on Cardinal Ratzinger and the Murphy case, and for the kind things they said about it.
There is more to say about the story. Quite a bit, actually. In particular, I’ll be responding to Sullivan, and I’ll be able to report on the German story, but first there are some additional facts to get on the table regarding the Wisconsin one.
Let’s start with a piece by Fr. Thomas Brundage (pictured), who writes:
I was the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003. During those years, I presided over four canonical criminal cases, one of which involved Father Lawrence Murphy. Two of the four men died during the process.
Interesting that Brundage says two of the four men died during the process. Contrary to what you would think from press reports, Murphy appears to be one of the two, given what shortly will become clear.
In any event, a 50% death rate seems to indicate aggressive prosecution of men even when they are quite old or in ill health. So already a picture is forming of Brundage as presiding over a vigorous court.
He has not been pleased with the New York Times’ (and other outlets’) reportage on the Murphy case:
As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing from a sense of duty to the truth.
The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.
Yeowch!
In 1996, I was introduced to the story of Father Murphy, formerly the principal of St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. It had been common knowledge for decades that during Father Murphy’s tenure at the school (1950-1974) there had been a scandal at St. John’s involving him and some deaf children. The details, however, were sketchy at best.
Courageous advocacy on behalf of the victims (and often their wives), led the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to revisit the matter in 1996.
“Courageous advocacy” suggests that there was a struggle requiring courage to get the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to act, presumably this involved the argument that Fr. Murphy’s crimes were committed long ago and that he was no longer in the diocese. Nevertheless . . .
In internal discussions of the curia for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, it became obvious that we needed to take strong and swift action with regard to the wrongs of several decades ago.
So far so good, but note this:
With the consent of then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland, we began an investigation into the allegations of child sexual abuse as well as the violation of the crime of solicitation within the confessional by Father Murphy.
Courageous advocacy . . . discussions in the curia regarding swift and strong action . . . “consent” of Weakland. Fr. Brundage is by no means saying this, and I could be misreading, but it sounds as if the primary momentum for prosecution originated in Weakland’s curia rather than with Weakland himself.
That would make sense given that Weakland himself had spent nearly half a million dollars in diocesan funds as hush money to keep a former homosexual lover from suing him for sexual abuse from around 1980.
There might be reasons he wouldn’t want to go prying into decades-old priestly sex cases. Who knows what could get unearthed in the process?
But the intensity of Murphy’s victims and the firmness of the curia was such that . . .
We proceeded to start a trial against Father Murphy. I was the presiding judge in this matter and informed Father Murphy that criminal charges were going to be levied against him with regard to child sexual abuse and solicitation in the confessional.
In my interactions with Father Murphy, I got the impression I was dealing with a man who simply did not get it. He was defensive and threatening.
Between 1996 and August, 1998, I interviewed, with the help of a qualified interpreter, about a dozen victims of Father Murphy. These were gut-wrenching interviews. In one instance the victim had become a perpetrator himself and had served time in prison for his crimes. I realized that this disease is virulent and was easily transmitted to others. I heard stories of distorted lives, sexualities diminished or expunged. These were the darkest days of my own priesthood, having been ordained less than 10 years at the time. Grace-filled spiritual direction has been a Godsend.
I also met with a community board of deaf Catholics. They insisted that Father Murphy should be removed from the priesthood and highly important to them was their request that he be buried not as a priest but as a layperson. I indicated that a judge, I could not guarantee the first request and could only make a recommendation to the latter request.
In the summer of 1998, I ordered Father Murphy to be present at a deposition at the chancery in Milwaukee. I received, soon after, a letter from his doctor that he was in frail health and could travel not more than 20 miles (Boulder Junction to Milwaukee would be about 276 miles). A week later, Father Murphy died of natural causes in a location about 100 miles from his home.
It would be interesting to learn where that was.
With regard to the inaccurate reporting on behalf of the New York Times, the Associated Press, and those that utilized these resources, first of all, I was never contacted by any of these news agencies but they felt free to quote me. Almost all of my quotes are from a document that can be found online with the correspondence between the Holy See and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In an October 31, 1997 handwritten document, I am quoted as saying ‘odds are that this situation may very well be the most horrendous, number wise, and especially because these are physically challenged , vulnerable people. “ Also quoted is this: “Children were approached within the confessional where the question of circumcision began the solicitation.”
The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct.
Yeah. What is it with the mainstream media? How did they get so arrogant, or sloppy, or both?
Now here comes a very interesting point, but first let’s go back to the NYT documentation for a moment.
You will recall that there was a meeting at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that was presided over by (now Cardinal) Bertone, who did not tell Weakland, Sklba, and Fliss (the American bishops involved in the case) that they couldn’t proceed with the case but who pointed out some difficulties and made some recommendations. (More on that in a new post soon. Very interesting stuff coming up on that meeting.)
When they got back home, Weakland sent a letter to Bertone saying that he (Weakland) had decided to abate the proceedings against Fr. Murphy, and that he had instructed Brundage to do so.
But Brundage says he never got the message:
Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this.
So this is why Murphy was one of two defendants who apparently died during a case that Brundage was overseeing.
Weakland may have decided to abate the proceedings, but Brundage didn’t get the message before Murphy died. Furthermore . . .
Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer.
So Brundage was thoroughly committed to seeing this thing through. Again, aggressive judge; passive Weakland.
Now what does Brundage have to say about Cardinal Ratzinger’s role in all this?
Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information.
As we saw in the previous post.
Also, there’s this note on the timeliness of the CDF’s reply to Weakland, which took nine months. I didn’t mention it in my previous post, but by Vatican standards, that’s actually rather quick (Americans have a whole different perspective on the use of time and what counts as efficient). Brundage, though, makes the point explicit:
Third, the competency to hear cases of sexual abuse of minors shifted from the Roman Rota to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001. Until that time, most appeal cases went to the Rota and it was our experience that cases could languish for years in this court. When the competency was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger.
I know the defenses that would be made on behalf of the Rota. Small staff. Huge Church. Also, I’m an American and I want everything done yesterday. Fine. This is a point on which there can be legitimate disagreement. Should Americans have more patience? Maybe. Should the Vatican ramp up its staff to correspond to the size of the Church it’s got? Maybe.
My point is: As open to criticism as the CDF’s initial nine month delay might be, it was actually relatively swift. (And, y’know, things tend to drag in the secular courts, too. They’re not often doing drumheads these days.)
I’ll have more soon, but for now let’s let Fr. Brundage have the last word:
Fourth, Pope Benedict has repeatedly apologized for the shame of the sexual abuse of children in various venues and to a worldwide audience. This has never happened before. He has met with victims. He has reigned in entire conferences of bishops on this matter, the Catholic Bishops of Ireland being the most recent. He has been most reactive and proactive of any international church official in history with regard to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse of minors. Instead of blaming him for inaction on these matters, he has truly been a strong and effective leader on these issues.
Finally, over the last 25 years, vigorous action has taken place within the church to avoid harm to children. Potential seminarians receive extensive sexual-psychological evaluation prior to admission. Virtually all seminaries concentrate their efforts on the safe environment for children. There have been very few cases of recent sexual abuse of children by clergy during the last decade or more.
Catholic dioceses all across the country have taken extraordinary steps to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults. As one example, which is by no means unique, is in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, where I currently work. Here, virtually every public bathroom in parishes has a sign asking if a person has been abuse by anyone in the church. A phone number is given to report the abuse and almost all church workers in the archdiocese are required to take yearly formation sessions in safe environment classes. I am not sure what more the church can do.
To conclude, the events during the 1960’s and 1970’s of the sexual abuse of minors and solicitation in the confessional by Father Lawrence Murphy are unmitigated and gruesome crimes. On behalf of the church, I am deeply sorry and ashamed for the wrongs that have been done by my brother priests but realize my sorrow is probably of little importance 40 years after the fact. The only thing that we can do at this time is to learn the truth, beg for forgiveness, and do whatever is humanly possible to heal the wounds. The rest, I am grateful, is in God’s hands.
Your thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment
I may be wrong, but I have seen no media questioning of Bp. Weakland. Allow me to speculate. Weakland is one of the primary sources for the media, but as Fr. de Souza <a >says</a>, “He is prima facie not a reliable source.” And then there is official secular pluralist dogma. The media is bound and determined to maintain the idea that homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with the abuse crisis. (Never mind that 60% of the abuse cases involve priests and post-pubescent males.) Even if we allow that Bp. Weakland’s homosexuality is different from Fr. Murphy’s perversity, it’s still one pervert running smokescreen for another and that doesn’t fit well with the media’s favored perversity which they have annointed not perverse at all.
But even with the above, let’s not ignore the legitimate criticism. Pope Paul VI appointed him and JPII seems to have tolerated possibly tolerated too much of his nonsense, and it is fair to raise the question of who dropped the ball.
Link to de Souza comments: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxYmUzMTQ1YWUyMzRkMzg4Y2RiN2UyOWIzNDVkNDM Sorry for bad format.
Over in the “Abuse Scandal” section, the article about WI case mentions that county civil authorities failed to act too. So, why isn’t that being publicized?
The Milwaukee County D.A. isn’t supposed to prosecute actual crimes. If that were to happen, the crime statistics would rise and people wouldn’t think Milwaukee was a safe city.
Of course, the same is true for Milwaukee County judges. They are all elected officials, who know that the majority of the voting population yearn for leniency when it comes to felonious activity, especially perverted felonious activity.
We won’t see the mainstream media question Weakland or use him as anything but a “sympathetic and credible” source. And that is for reasons better not gone into here, out of charity. Suffice to say, they’re on his side, because he is not on the church’s.
Maybe the media has become arrogant because it has gotten sloppy.
I don’t think we should be angry with the media. Most people give them far to much credit and influence. In my experience, non-specialized journalists are often too ignorant on what they report and so easily manipulated by their sources. In both these cases we shouldn’t ask what the media wants, but who is using it. And, specially about the German side of this scandal, I tend to think this is an internal affair.
I have little patience for the extremists here who have shouted “WHY WASN’T THIS MAN ARRESTED!!! WHY DID THE CHURCH LET HIM LIVE PEACEFULLY WITH HIS MOTHER!! YADA! YADA!”
Yo Genius, the police & the DA clearly knew about this guy & did nothing(go back & read Jimmy again this time with your eyes open). Why hasn’t the TIMES been complaining about the DA who refused to prosecute or arrest this clown? I’m just saying.
Give e’m Heaven Jimmy & the church always needs reform but I think people should stop using this crisis to enable anti-Catholic bigots who don’t give a rat’s behind about sex abuse victims.
“...and JPII seems to have tolerated possibly tolerated too much of his nonsense”
I’ve heard a number comments to the effect that JPII should have summarily removed Weakland from his bishopric. The pope just doesn’t have that power as I understand it. Bishops do not serve at the pleasure of the pope in the way that a cabinet appointee serves at the pleasure of the U.S. President.
The Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church states,
“The pastoral charge . . . is entrusted to [the bishops] fully; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman pontiff, for they exercise the power that they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern (LG 27).”
Catholic answers has an article about it. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0602fea1.asp
Maybe Jimmy can expand on this topic.
The NYT has made itself look ridiculous. Journalists should learn from lawyers not to leap to conclusions on the basis of emotional prejudice. Maureen Dowd is going downhill—unless she gets a grip she’ll end up in hasbeen-land with Camille Paglia.
And yet in these current times we hear absolutely nothing from the Vatican about Father Jenkins of Notre Dame or Pelosi, Biden and the scores of priests, nuns, and other Catholic politicians that platform infanticide.
Here here, also Michael Pfleger, and cardinal balony.
Hear hear
Thank you so much for the ongoing information and clarification. And many thanks too, to Fr. Brundage for upholding justice and exercising prudence. This issue has been a special cross for us during this Lent. And Jimmy, we’re glad that you are Catholic. God bless you!
All the fact gathering is, I understand, necessary and informative. The reality is that there should not be one, not one, case of sexual abuse by a priest on a child. May I humbly suggest that is to be the goal of Church
To Paul,
I accept your suggestion as an ideal, a goal to be striven toward. However, we are all sinners, we have no idea what causes such predators to act as they do, and—as the local diocesan program has taught me—the predators quickly learn societal camouflage. Consider Fr. Brundage’s comment on Mr. Murphy’s response to his first contact, “defensive and threatening”. There is much to learn and much work to do. That work will undoubtedly continue until we are called. Will you help learn and work with us?
in regards to Paul’s comments: that has been the Church’s goal all along to not have one single case of abuse and if you compare the steps the Church has taken in the US they have been up and beyond the steps taken by any other institution including SCHOOLS! I read that in the past year that within the US there have been a total of 6 cases where accusations were made.
On another note, I hope I don’t come across as some sort of conspiracy kook, but I noticed how there were others commenting on why the Vatican has been silent regarding Pelosi, Biden, and those horrible misguided Sisters. Now consider the tactic used by those groups against secular groups that oppose them; TeaParty people are labeled racists, FoxNews is not “really” a news source, if you you against the health reform fiasco, you want poor people to die, etc, etc, etc. it’s all about discrediting, marginilizing, diminishing the opposition so they will be above reproach.
Well, don’t you think that the backlash that the Catholic laity was being heard by the Bishops and just when the Bishops seemed to be poised to start pushing back, suddenly the NYT and CNN and the greater evil MSNBC come out with all these attacks on demonizing the Church all the way to the Pope. Besides it being Holy Week, the timing, considering the players just seem like the perfect distraction.
The fact that the media makes statements like ‘if the Church could survive’ kinda makes me laugh. I’ll take Christ’s statements on the answer to that question, it’s just sad that the media does not seem to, but they are actually the Hell he mentioned, or at least acting on Hell’s behalf.
What I find very interesting in this entire situation with the media’s false reporting on the Church’s recent past is their self-righteous inconsistencies. On the one hand they are ready to point out our lack of proper action to prosecute those in the clergy who exhibited homosexual and pedophilia attacks on the innocent. While on the other hand this same media promote the very same activities by promoting pornography, gays in the military, gay marriage/life-style, adoption by gay couples, etc. The Church is being cleansed within and the media is not looking into its own back yard.
Pope Benedict is a man of kindness, strength, probity and, above all, honesty. Those who condemn him now, over one single alleged “gotcha” transgression, have absolutely NO facts, only third-party speculation and a paper trail that’s ambiguous at best. (Of course, those determined to demonize Church and pope call this evidence.) The Catholic Church is a huge institution, and as such is ungainly and clumsy and often impolitic. Vatican preacher Cantalamessa’s Good Friday homily, comparing the current lynch mob mentality with the persecution of the Jews does not help matters. Nor does a report in an Italian newspaper that “certain Catholic circles” claim that criticism of the church stems from a New York “Jewish lobby”. Midst the calumnies and the defensiveness I take refuge in the most compassionate and wise perspective on the priest scandals I have ever read, by Michael Kinsley (Jewish, by the way): http://bit.ly/aVwC5U
The NYT has proven itself time and again to be the most anti-Catholic rag on the racks, with all the propaganda that’s fit to print and all the news that is fit not to report, especially if it goes against their socialist agenda. This can be said for much of the MSM as well. Every Lent and every Advent we can expect to endure more crap that questions the pope, Christ’s divinity, Christ’s sexuality, Mary’s sexuality, and any other topic that Catholics cherish, while suggesting ecclesiastical scandal in the form of secrets, cover-ups and unearthings of long lost apocrypha. That the NYT no longer moves off of the racks is enough of a statement on the quality of that newspaper, and the unsold papers should be recycled and used as toilet paper. I would suggest they be used as is but I wouldn’t want to add to the stench in the lavatories.
Oh, and happy Easter. Allelulia, He is risen! Sorry for the “vitriol” - hasn’t that become an overused word lately? - during the high holy days.
Fun to watch you catholics roll around in the dirt of making excuses for your system of running things. The whining in this thread and in general in catholic journalism is just hilarious. Please, keep it up. The longer you take this stance, the more like the hardcore conservatives you become, smaller and weirder, driving out the normals. Please please do not hold any bishops accountable for anything that happened on their watch. That is just the ticket. Can’t wait to tell my catholic friends how it really is in the church. As Nelson says, ha ha.
Tim, I think something that can help is to follow what Jimmy was saying. He wasn’t covering up or avoiding holding someone accountable. He was looking at the facts. Also, bad journalism is bad journalism, be it on the president, clergy, or anyone, be it in the Times.
Aye Mac. When one sees such detraction of oozing contempt and obliviousness to facts and truth, it is readily apparent that they are not interested in justice or the victims, but only care about abuse in as far as its usefulness as a stick to beat the Church.
Note to Tim O.
Maybe the NYT can accuse you of covering up the scandle and being involved too. No facts necessary to make that leap, but here you are blogging on a Catholic page, so therefore you must be involved. So how does it feel to be painted with the same brush when NO facts are involved?
The MSM should be spelled KKK instead.
Their blatant anti-Catholic bigotry is disgusting.
Why is it that it’s the catholic church’s fault, that some men have abused their position of trust? When it gets down to it an active peadophile will find ways of getting himself into a position of trust, whether that be a priesthood, teacher, scout master or even a kids football coach. The church is doing almost all it can to prevent these awful acts from happening. However I do feel that the (goverments and churchs) authorities need to be more proactive in such cases, especially when it is a Catholic priest. What we need to see is swift justice, when a priest is found guilty of these crimes he should be stripped of his post and excommunicated. I’m sure God knows that the crimes are unacceptable and the man cannot be put in a position of trust again. peodophiles cannot be ‘cured’ and it is time for the church to accept this.I believe also that the media/internet loves to use this as a way to vilify the church as a whole. Part of the athiest agenda is to find fault publically for religion and truth be told this type of stuff happens in all walks of life in many cultures/religions. and guess what, there are athiest peodos too. I really feel for the victims of these cases aswell, every time they do a google search they will be haunted by the awful things that have happened to them.
Cardinal Jos Ratzinger was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope John Paul II and helped orchestrate the US policy and thus the world’s policy on protection of the Institution rather than the children of abuse. Now when his “so sad, too bad” comments are coming, he rolls over the depth of his knowledge and participation of the coverup: First blaming John Paul II, he was only acting under him; then blaming the homosexuals; now blaming the Irish Church and priests. etc etc. etc. These people who committed these crimes were and still are by and large pedophiles, that cannot be “treated” or sent out to pasture to reflect on Jesus. (Sociopaths, are not treatedable!) They belonged and belong in jail. And any person, priest, bishop, cardinal, pope, should resign if they participated in the violation of the law (legal) and also violated God’s law. When asked by his followers: Master, who is God? Jesus lifted the face of the child: “This is God.” So my heart and soul is with Jesus…not with the institution that violates this.
While some countries are more likely to have the worst offenders, how come amost all the Popes are Italian?
Is this because the Popes “chosen” are more likely to have a code of silence, that indeed keeps the brotherhood going? The Don in power? Just think about this people. Other than John Paul II how many non Italian Popes are installed in the Holy See?
When I was a kid, Francis Cardinal Spellman was one of the most powerful Catholics in the world, politically, and we all know what a “saint” he turned out to be. His famous words: “You give them to us by age 7 and we have them for life. Was so true. Do Catholics think that Protestants, Jews, indeed, any religion doesn’t see
hypocracy of all this?
Also, when comments such as “all religions have their pedophiles or perverts, (we all do it), or the schyster lawyers (anti-Semitism?) or any attempt to say, forgive and forget, will continue to expunge the truth:
Do not forgive and forget: Remember
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.