This will be a long one, so let me summarize the key points right up front:
* One of the documents contained in the New York Times files on the Fr. Lawrence Murphy case is a memo in Italian summarizing a meeting that was held at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about Fr. Murphy.
* This memo has not had a professional English translation until now.
* The new translation is a smoking gun in that it reveals how badly the New York Times and others have botched the story.
* Then-Cardinal Ratzinger was not present at the meeting. It was run by the Secretary of the CDF, then-Archbishop Bertone.
* Cardinal Ratzinger’s name never comes up, making it impossible to determine anything regarding his involvement in this case.
* In the meeting Bertone points out the difficulties in proceeding with canonical trial for Fr. Murphy, but he does not forbid one.
* The chief difficulty, according to Bertone, is gathering the needed proof against Murphy given the passage of time (not Murphy’s advanced age or ill-health, neither of which is mentioned at all).
* Bertone is appalled at how long this case has been allowed to linger and by the fact that Murphy apparently still has the ability to celebrate Mass for the deaf community in Milwaukee. He insists that this be rectified.
* He also insists that Fr. Murphy be made to reflect on the gravity of his crimes and to furnish proof of his repentance.
* If he fails to do so, Murphy can have additional penalties inflicted on him, including “dismissal from the clerical state” (i.e., laicization, “defrocking”).
* The CDF is thus not opposed to defrocking Murphy.
* A note on the same meeting by Bishop Sklba states that Bertone also said that a new canonical process can be initiated against Murphy if he violates directives not to have contact with the Milwaukee deaf community.
* In audio interview referencing the same meeting Archbishop Weakland also characterizes the CDF’s response as a “suggestion,” says that he doesn’t think Cardinal Ratzinger was personally involved with these types of cases at this point, says that everyone—including Weakland himself—moved slowly, and says that trying to initiate a canonical case to defrock a priest was something unusual at the time.
One can still criticize the way the CDF handled the case, but the memo does not reveal a portrait of Bertone—much less Ratzinger—as unwilling to take action against Fr. Murphy. A current trial is not prohibited, and even if one is not held, Murphy is not off the hook. He must be prohibited from contact with the community he has harmed, if he fails to provide proof of his repentance he is at risk of being defrocked, and if he breaks the new rules a further canonical process against him could begin.
Now the long form . . .
The other day while composing the first post regarding Cardinal Ratzinger’s (non-)involvement in the Lawrence Murphy paedophilia case I was frustrated by the fact that one of the key documents was available only in Italian and with a really, really lame machine translation done back in 1998.
The document was a memo summarizing a meeting on May 30, 1998 at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith between Archbishop Bertone, the secretary of the CDF and thus the man responsible for its day-to-day operations, and the American bishops involved in the Murphy case.
I figured I’d do the best with it I could, but there were likely additional facts in the document that would emerge in future discussion, once the matter was out on the blogosphere.
Boy, was that right!
This is the smoking gun memo for the case. It reveals just how completely wrong the New York Times and the mainstream media have gotten this story.
I owe a Ten Gallon Cowboy Hat Tip to translator Lori Pieper (BIO) (BLOG) for THIS PROFESSIONALLY DONE TRANSLATION. (HER COMMENTARY.)
Just as the New York Times and other media outlets never contacted key figure Fr. Thomas Brundage before running the story, it appears that they also never got a professional translation of the document, with the result that important facts were left out entirely—or ended up being misrepresented in the press to convey the opposite impression.
So much for the MSM’s “layers of fact checkers.” They couldn’t even have their correspondent in Italy (I assume that person can translate Italian to English?) do a translation of an obviously key document (a meeting held at the Vatican regarding the very case they’re investigating? Sheesh!).
But thanks to the blogosphere and its Army of Davids, we now have a translation. (All emphases, both bold and italics, in the original.)
So what does it say?
Summary of a meeting between the Superiors of the CDF and Their Excellencies the Prelates involved in the case of Lawrence C. Murphy, a priest accused of solicitation in Confession (Prot. No. 111/96).
As the title reveals, the reason that the CDF was involved in this case is that it involved a priest accused of sexual solicitation in the confessional—not because it involved paedophilia. At the time, the CDF did not have a mandate to cover paedophilia (those were normally handled by the local bishop or, if appealed to Rome, by a different Vatican court—the Roman Rota). But the CDF did (and does) have a mandate to deal with cases involving priests who commit sexual solicitation in the confessional.
The meeting took place on Saturday, May 30, 1998 in the office of the CDF. Present for the CDF were: His Excellency, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary, who presided over the meeting, the Rev. Father Gianfranco Girotti, Undersecretary. Don Antonio Manna of the Disciplinary Office, Don Michael Jackels (translator) and Fr. Antonio Ramos. Present were Their Excellencies the prelates who had requested the meeting: His Excellency, Rembert Weakland, Archbishop of Milwaukee (USA), his Auxiliary, His Excellency, Richard Sklba and His Excellency, Raphael Fliss, Bishop of Superior (USA).
Note who is not in attendance: Cardinal Ratzinger. It is possible that Bertone was acting on Ratzinger’s instructions in this meeting, but it is also possible that he was acting independently. We just don’t know. Ratzinger’s name never even comes up in this document.
Also note that the CDF has a Disciplinary Office, which is represented at the meeting by Don Antonio Manna. This is not the only case the CDF has to work on.
As the meeting starts, Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland begins with a summary of the case:
1. His Excellency Archbishop Weakland briefly set forth the previous facts of the case, bringing out the following points: 1°) there have turned out to be many victims of the abuses by Fr. Murphy, all of them deaf; 2°) in 1974, there was an intervention in Fr. Murphy’s case, but nothing had been recorded in the archdiocesan archives (it appears that there was a civil lawsuit, which ended without any penalty being imposed on the accused and the intervention consisted of sending the said priest to another diocese, i.e. Superior); 3°) the deaf community is now experiencing great indignation because of this case and refuses any pastoral solution; 4°) because of the long period of time that has passed since the events took place, it is no longer possible to begin a civil lawsuit in the state of Wisconsin; 5°) Fr. Murphy has no sense of remorse and does not seem to realize the gravity of what he has done. In addition, 6°) there is the danger of great scandal if the case is publicized by the press. According to the testimonies that have been collected, Fr. Murphy’s misdeeds had their origins in Confession.
Point 2 is startling, shocking even. For there not to be diocesan records concerning the 1974 “intervention” (that is, the action undertaken by the diocese) under Weakland’s predecessor Archbishop William Cousins reveals an instance of appalling incompetence at best.
Point 3 is the primary motivator for Weakland taking canonical action against Murphy. The deaf community will not find other solutions acceptable at this point.
Actually, there is more to it than this. Though the memo speaks of the deaf community as a united whole, in a recent audio interview with the BBC Weakland states that there was a sharp division in the Milwaukee deaf community over this case, with the younger members—who had been abused—indignant and the older members—who saw Murphy as someone helping them—taking his side.
It might be more accurate, then, to say that certain elements of the local deaf community would not accept anything other than a trial at this point.
Point 4 is another reason for canonical action. Because the Wisconsin statute of limitations has expired, the deaf community cannot begin an action against Murphy in civil court. If there is to be a judicial action taken against him, it must be in Church court.
Note that the idea of keeping the case secret is not on the table. The matter is public, and the civil authorities already knew (see point 2, above). It appears that if a civil lawsuit were still possible, nobody in the room would object to it.
Point 5 is the assessment that Fr. Thomas Brundage (see link above) and others involved in the case came to, though Murphy claimed the contrary in his January 1998 letter, in which he said that he had repented of his past transgressions. Nevertheless, as we will see, it is the assumption that he is not properly repentant that the meeting will proceed on.
Point 6 reflects the natural desire to avoid scandal. But be careful here. In ecclesiastical-speak, “scandal” does not just mean controversy. It means “to cause (others) to stumble” in their faith or morals (Greek, skandalizein, “to cause to stumble,” “to trip”), such as alienating people from Christ and his Church through the actions of sinful ministers—something any bishop would and should want to avoid.
Note that Weakland wants to pursue canonical action against Murphy to provide justice for abused members of the deaf community and heal the rift Fr. Murphy has created. And at the same time he wants to avoid the scandal and alienation that sensationalistic press coverage would generate.
It is one thing to try to avoid taking action in order to minimize press coverage. It is another to want to take action while minimizing scandal. It’s hard to fault Weakland for wanting to take the latter path.
One note on Weakland’s last point: The memo states that Fr. Murphy’s crimes “had their origin in Confession.” In the audio interview, Weakland clarifies that he’s not saying that they physically took place in the confessional but that they were in some way connected to the confessional. (Perhaps, e.g., he used his knowledge from the confessional to identify potential abuse victims.) This may relate directly to one of the difficulties that Archbishop Bertone points out.
Now that Weakland has had his say, Bertone of the CDF has his:
2. His Excellency the Secretary of the CDF—stressing both the long period of time that has now passed (more than 35 years!) from when the events took place, which constitutes the true problem even on the canonical side, and the fact that there has been no report of other crimes perpetrated or scandals created by Murphy during these years in Superior—maintains that there is insufficient information to instruct a canonical process. Nevertheless, he stresses, it is unacceptable for him [Murphy] to be able to go and celebrate the Eucharist in the deaf community in Milwaukee; it will be necessary, therefore, to impede him, having recourse also to some penal remedies. For precautionary reasons, he can be ordered to celebrate the Eucharist only in the diocese of Superior, especially since this is agreed to both by his Ordinary, i.e. the Archbishop of Milwaukee, and the Ordinary of the place where he resides. But such a provision must be communicated to him in writing. [1]
Note the element of exasperation at how long this has been allowed to linger (that exclamation point after “35 years” is there in the Italian). Because of this, Bertone feels that there is not enough information to properly inform a canonical process against Murphy. As a secondary point, he notes that there have been no new allegations against Murphy, but even though the statute of limitations has already been waived in terms of Church law, the gobsmacking lack of documentation and amount of time that this case has been left to linger creates significant hurdles for prosecuting this case.
That does not mean inaction at this point. On the contrary, Bertone now turns to measures that should be taken against Murphy even in the absence of an ecclesiastical trial.
He is indignant that Murphy has the ability to celebrate Mass for the deaf community in Milwaukee.
There is some confusion about precisely what Murphy did and was allowed to do in this matter. One source, from Feb 1997, suggests that Weakland and Sklba of Milwaukee have directed Murphy not to have contact with deaf people but that there is “some indication from the diocese of Superior” that he has done so by saying Mass and helping with retreats for the deaf.
Murphy’s own letter, from January 1998, indicates that his ministry was never restricted by Weakland’s predecessor, Cousins, and that thus he has on occasion said Mass at parishes in the diocese of Superior and helped at retreats for the deaf. He also states that he has complied with every directive of Cousins and now Weakland.
From the documentation I’ve been able to review, it is not clear just what the facts are. It may be there, but I haven’t seen proof that Murphy was saying Mass for the deaf in the Milwaukee archdiocese (or for the deaf in the diocese of Superior). It strikes me as unlikely that Murphy would say he had complied with all of Weakland’s directives if he knew that Weakland could produce a document showing him to be in violation. So perhaps Weakland only communicated the directive orally. Or perhaps there was miscommunication. Or perhaps the source quoted in the Feb. 1997 document was under the mistaken impression that such directives had been communicated when they hadn’t been.
In any event, Bertone is acting on the premise that Murphy still legally has the ability to celebrate the Mass for the deaf community in Milwaukee, and he is indignant and determined to end that.
The language he uses—for anyone familiar with the ultra-polite, ultra-diplomatic way that Catholic bishops speak to and about each other—is dramatic.
First, he says that is is “unacceptable” that Murphy has the ability to go and say Mass for the Milwaukee deaf community. In the language of bishops, saying this is “unacceptable” translates into normal speech as, “Why haven’t you taken care of this already, you fools? How can you possibly allow this criminal to continue to have contact with the very community he has harmed? You don’t need a trial to stop him from doing that. Use your authority as bishops!”
Thus he says it will be “necessary” (charged term) to “impede” (charged term) Murphy, including having recourse to the infliction of “penal remedies” (charged term).
BTW, Bertone may have been even more blunt about all this in person. What we are dealing with is the exquisitely politely-drafted memo version.
“For precautionary reasons” (i.e., to protect the Milwaukee deaf community from further scandalization—or even abuse—by Murphy), the two bishops can take immediate action. Together Weakland (the ordinary or episcopal “boss” to whom Murphy reports) and Fliss (the ordinary or episcopal “boss” of the place where Murphy lives) can order him not to celebrate Mass except in the Diocese of Superior, thus preventing him from doing so for the deaf community in Milwaukee.
This order “must” (charged term) be communicated to him in writing so that there can be no mistake about it. No “he said; he said.” (Perhaps this is an indication that prior directives to Murphy—if any—had been oral in nature.)
You don’t need a trial for this, guys. Do it!
Don’t let yourselves be hung up by a trial, because there are some hurdles there . . .
3. In regard to the possibility of a canonical process for the crime of solicitation in Confession, His Excellency the Secretary draws attention to some problems that it presents: 1°) first of all the difficulty of proving such a crime, the interpretation of which will have to be made in stricto sensu [in the strict sense]; 2°) the difficulty that deaf people have in furnishing proof and testimonies without aggravating matters, keeping in mind both the limits inherent in their disability and the distance of the events in time. Nevertheless, he stresses, it will be necessary to make Murphy reflect seriously on the grave nature of the evil he has done and on the fact that he will have to give proofs of reformation. 3°) He mentions finally the broad right of [self]-defense that exists in the U.S. and the difficulties that would be put forward by the lawyers in this direction.
Point 1 is Bertone’s real concern here: “the difficulty of proving such a crime.” Notice that, despite the fact that Murphy had sent a letter pleading ill-health as a reason not to proceed. Bertone’s concern is with the difficulty of using a trial under these circumstances, not with Murphy’s health. The latter may well have been one motivating factor in the CDF’s recommendations, but it doesn’t appear in the minutes of this meeting.
And so Bertone points out several difficulties with the proposition of going to trial.
Here we arrive at a place where the previous, machine translation, is positively misleading. Contrary to Andrew Sullivan and reader Carolyn Disco, who are dependent on the machine translation, Cardinal Bertone does not speak of increasing scandal or the need for secrecy. What Cardinal Bertone refers to is the need to prove that the crime has been committed “in the strict sense” (not proving it “in strict secrecy”) and that this will be difficult without “aggravating matters” (not “increasing the scandal”).
The first difficulty Archbishop Bertone mentions (dealt with in the latter part of point 1) is that the law applied to Murphy will have to be interpreted in the strict sense.
This refers to a point in canon law that may not be obvious. According to canon 18 of the Code of Canon Law,
Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.
The purpose of this canon (among other things) is to prevent innocent people from having penalties inflicted on them based on loosey-goosey readings of the law. If you’re going to be hit with a penalty, it should be unambiguous that you violated the law. (Note that this applies not just to priests, but to anybody who could be hit with a penalty. It’s related to the “innocent until proven guilty” ethic.)
Thus penal laws applied to Murphy will have to be interpreted in the strict sense. That means that you will have to prove that his actions clearly violated the letter of the law, not debatably violated it, not violating its spirit or intent, but clear violation of the letter of the law itself.
This opens up potential challenges that Murphy’s advocate could make in the case.
For example, remember how in the audio interview Weakland cautioned that the crimes may not have been in the confessional itself but only had some connection with it or “had their origin” in it, the way the memo states? Perhaps Weakland has a weak case against the guy in terms of proving a connection with the confessional. Murphy’s canonical advocate could certainly argue fallibility of memory after this many years.
We know how defense attorneys are (and you have to let the guy have a defense attorney or there is not even a pretense of justice): “Is Victim A really sure that Murphy said this to him in confession and not outside of it? How can he be sure after so many years? How does he know that Murphy’s abuse of him wasn’t based on attraction he felt independently and not based on what was said to him in confession? It’s one thing when these kinds of things are fresh in memory, but after 35 years?”
Remember: If Weakland wants to run this case under the auspices of the CDF then it needs to be tried on what the CDF has competency over at this time, which is abuse of the sacrament of confession. If Weakland wants to run it as a paedophilia case then the normal dicastery to contact would be the Roman Rota, not the CDF.
So Weakland may have made a mistake not only by waiting so long to deal with the case but also by picking a dicastery that doesn’t have the right jurisdiction given the evidence he can provide.
Also related, though not specifically mentioned here, is that like any priest accused of misconduct in the confessional, Murphy is hampered in making his own defense by the fact that he can never (under pain of automatic excommunication) violate the seal of confession. According to the Code of Canon Law,
Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
“For any reason” includes your own defense in a Church trial. Even to prove your own innocence, you can’t break the seal.
That makes hearing these kinds of cases harder, since one of the parties is significantly impeded from being able to tell his side of the story.
In point 2, Bertone brings out another difficulty in proceeding with the case, namely, “the difficulty that deaf people have in furnishing proof and testimonies without aggravating matters.”
I have to say that I don’t know what Bertone is referring to here. The memo tries to clarify by referencing “the limits inherent in their disability and the distance of the events in time.”
Perhaps Bertone is thinking that, given the utter lack of documentation from the 1970s, that it would aggravate matters for the deaf community by forcing members of it to undergo deposition via an interpreter in ways that could rip open old wounds about painful experiences a long time ago.
This could be particularly true if, as Weakland says in the audio interview, the local deaf community was divided, with one generation taking Murphy’s side and another opposing him.
Or perhaps he thinks that deaf people somehow have difficulty communicating matters with precision due to the nature of sign language (in which case he doesn’t—or at least didn’t—have much awareness of how American Sign Language works; it can be just as precise as spoken languages). Or perhaps he is thinking that some deaf people have difficulty communicating because their parents do not arrange for their children to have a good education in sign language and proper exposure to the deaf community (though that would not seem to be the case in a school for the deaf).
He does seem to be thinking of the fact that, for both the hearing and the deaf, our memories aren’t always as reliable as we would want concerning long-ago events, including—and perhaps especially—traumatic events.
Whatever the case here—and it may simply be bad memo drafting since we don’t have Bertone’s own words—he thinks that it will be difficult to get the needed proof for a trial.
Despite this, and in the same point, Bertone stresses that it will be “necessary” (charged word) “to make Murphy reflect seriously on the grave nature of the evil he has done and on the fact that he will have to give proofs of reformation.”
So Murphy is not to be let off the hook if a trial doesn’t proceed. He’s going to have to reflect on the gravity of his sins and provide proof that he has repented.
In point 3 Bertone cites a third difficulty for a trial, which is “the broad right of [self]-defense that exists in the U.S. and the difficulties that would be put forward by the lawyers” acting on Murphy’s behalf.
The memo doesn’t say, but it is possible Bertone is thinking not just of Murphy’s canonical advocate in the Church trial but of civil lawyers getting involved and trying to interfere with ecclesiastical proceedings. Indeed, that may be what he is thinking since under the Church’s internal law, priests in America don’t have any broader right of self-defense than priests in other countries (though American priests might seek to exercise their canonical rights more aggressively).
So, while he doesn’t exclude the possibility of a trial of Murphy, Bertone notes various difficulties that one would face, while simultaneously insisting that actions must be taken against Murphy.
Weakland then agrees to such actions . . .
4. His Excellency 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.
Here we have arrived at another point where the original machine translation is badly misleading. It is incredibly garbled. Among other things, it makes it appear that three psychologists would need (in the future) to evaluate him and determine if he is a typical paedophile. In fact, as the above translation makes clear, three psychologists have examined him and found him to be a typical paedophile.
Worse, the machine translation leaves out altogether Bertone’s proposal of “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” (emphasis in original). Dismissal from the clerical state is laicization or “defrocking,” so defrocking Murphy is explicitly on the table in this meeting. Yet the machine translation leaves it out entirely.
So, far from opposing a trial, on grounds of age or health or anything else, the undersecretary of the CDF indicates that “we will have to have recourse to a trial” if Murphy doesn’t furnish “clear signs of repentance.”
Bertone goes farther, saying that Murphy needs to be sent on retreat with the warning that if he doesn’t come back seriously repentant that he will risk exposing himself to “more rigorous measures [being] imposed on him,” including “dismissal from the clerical state.” He also wants a spiritual director to keep tabs on Murphy.
5. His Excellency the Secretary finally sums up the two central points of the line to be followed in regard to the priest, in a word: 1°) the territorial restriction of the celebration of the Eucharist and 2°) the admonition to induce him to show remorse.
So, whether there is a trial or not, two points are definitely to be followed: Keep Murphy from celebrating Mass for the Milwaukee deaf community and take steps to provoke repentance, with the warnings above about what will happen if he’s not properly repentant, age and anything else notwithstanding.
Weakland then get the last effective word:
Before the conclusion of the meeting, Archbishop Weakland thought it important to restate that it will be difficult to make the deaf community understand the slight extent of these provisions.
And that’s the end of the meeting.
We also have another, briefer account of the meeting in the form of notes that were taken on it by Bishop Richard J. Sklba [RJS in the notes], who was one of the attendees. He writes:
385.
Lawrence Murphy
On May 30, 1998 I joined Archbishop Weakland and Bishop Fliss in meeting with Archbishop Bertone and staff regarding the case. It became clear that the Congregation was not encouraging us to proceed with any formal dismissal on the basis of 24 years of apparent good conduct and the precept impeding exercise of orders currently in effect. We were also cautioned about the difficulty of the question of the Confessional, both in terms of the strict canonical definition of the crime as well as the time lapse between obtaining the information and acting thereon. Archbishop Bertone noted that disobedience of any precept forbidding contact with community members could form the basis for another canonical process.
RJS
So Sklba’s understanding was also that the CDF was “not encouraging us to proceed” but also not forbidding.
An interesting note that wasn’t captured in the official memo summarizing the meeting is Sklba’s last sentence: “Archbishop Bertone noted that disobedience of any precept forbidding contact with community members could form the basis for another canonical process.”
So even if there would be difficulties prosecuting a case this old, if Murphy violates the soon-to-be-imposed requirements not to have contact with the deaf community, he can be nailed for that.
In the audio interview, Weakland also offers a very brief account of the CDF meeting, which he also characterizes as resulting in a “request” to handle the case with restrictions rather than a trial (at the 3:55 mark). Weakland also states (4:40) that he doesn’t think Cardinal Ratzinger was personally involved in this kind of case at this point (i.e., before the CDF was given the mandate to handle them) and that everyone—Weakland himself included—was acting slowly. Weakland states that he probably should have acted ten years earlier (5:10). He also states, very interestingly, that at the time U.S. bishops weren’t really thinking about canonical cases to get priests defrocked (5:15), that what he was trying to do was something unusual for the time—perhaps explaining the difficulty he encountered trying to do it.
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
David, I am not judging you.
All I said was that wanting to heal and wanting to reform are two conflicting goals. You cannot heal, if you keep on complaining.
If you want to hea;l, find another hobby, if you want to be a hero who helped to reform the church, it has a price: continued frustration.
Also, you wrote: “if the pope is guilty…” and assume he is, without any evidence, in fact, against all evidence. You have made the pope the scape goat for the crime committed against you. If the pope is not guilty, you are barking up the wrong tree, which adds to your problem. Almosty by definition, you make it impossible to heal your wound.
I am not judging you, I understand where you are coming from, but believe me, that is not the way to heal.
If intereted, I can quote you studies that will prove that you can, and only YOU can heal yourself.
You’re really the expert, are you? You know all about what this is like and how it feels?
I have a valid opinion about the Church and what it needs. And healing involves being open about what happened to me, and no longer hiding it in shame.
That shame belongs to the church’s hierarchy who did nothing.
What is wrong with working to change the world? Even the church? You act as if that is somehow wrong… but it is how all progress is made in this world… by people who are willing to stand up and be counted and to make a difference.
I’m not interested in “victory over the church.” But I do want it to reform itself. And if the Pope is guilty, then he’s guilty and needs to go, or at least own up to his part and make an act of contrition. Why shouldn’t he? Is he somehow exempt from sin or error? Surely you don’t believe that.
I’m not going to bother to explain my pain to you anymore, as you’ll just tell me I’m wallowing in self pity. You don’t know what it’s like. You’re lucky you don’t know what it’s like… how I envy you that you don’t know what it’s like.
But the least you could do is not judge others until you have walked in their shoes.
Dear David:
You wrote “Funny how somebody always brings up money, as if this was just a cash grab in some way.” No, it’s not funny. There are many, especially lawyers, who consider these cases as a cash cow and want to milk it as long as they can. I didn’t apply it to your case, since I do not know you.
In your letters there seem to be two conflicting issues:
On the one hand, you would like to close this issue, on the other hand you want to reform the Church. The two goals exclude each other. You spent thousands on therapy, but it seems you went to the wrong therapists. They also often see cases like yours a cash cow. Once you are healed, they lost you as a client.
Dear Abby could tell you free of charge, that to heal a wound, physical or psychological, you shouldn’t keep ripping it open. She would recommend to find another hobby, to keep yourself busy, and you will heal yourself. Human nature is a marvelous thing: it can heal itself, be it a broken bone, a flu, or psychological wound caused by sexual abuse.
Every time you went to your therapists, or every comment you read on this web site, you rip the wound open. Also, as long as you want to reform the Church, you must keep your wound open. Once it heals, you are no longer interested in being a reformer. Tell me, how would it heal your wound if the Pope admits that he is guilty? It could heal you only if you accept it as a victory over the Church. It would still depend on you, whether you stop this crusade, and find another hobby, or continue this crusade that requires you to keep the wound open to give you motivation!
You wrote: “As to forgiving, in order to forgive, there must be contrition on the part of those who did wrong, a willingness to own up to it, and to be accountable, even if you’re the Pope.” But forgiving is not your job. God does not need your help to forgive somebody. Your job is healing yourself!
From your last sentence, “And another thing… stop pretending that this all happened 20 years ago. It’s happening today… this is not “old news” this is ongoing… in all denominations and religions, not just the Catholic Church,” it seems you have lots of causes to fight for, so you cannot keep your wound sealed, without constantly re-opening it. Therefore, my prognosis is that you can keep going to the therapist for the rest of you life, you will never give up this crusade, never have time to smell the roses, and will swallow in self pity until you die a frustrated old man…
On the other hand, you can stop thinking about the past, fire your therapist, spend the money, or what’s left, on yourself, take your family on a cruise, enjoy life, forget, or at least stop re-hashing the past, and leave the crusade to others.
Funny how somebody always brings up money, as if this was just a cash grab in some way.
As to forgiving, in order to forgive, there must be contrition on the part of those who did wrong, a willingness to own up to it, and to be accountable, even if you’re the Pope.
We often here complaints implying that we should all just move on… well, you don’t know what it’s like, and how damaging this is. I’ve been through years of therapy, costing thousands of dollars… I take 8 pills a night to manage PTSD symptoms.
No one has the right to tell us to just “move on” or (as you put it) “close the past.” It’s not that simple or easy… and it will require a lot of painful work to do so.
I would help if the Pope would apologize for his errors, take full responsibility for what he did or failed to do, and promise that he will hold all members of the hierarchy who are implicated in this accountable.
No, he doesn’t have to resign… if he owns up, even if his part in it is not as bad as the press says… he had a part in it… and he needs to own up to it publically.
In the end the Church will be stronger for this, not weaker… this is an important corrective to grievous error.
And, I also believe that all processes leading towards the canonization of JP2 should be suspended until we know what role he played in this… he may have given directives which Cardinal Ratzinger was merely following… not that that absolves him of his error, but it would clarify the situation.
And another thing… stop pretending that this all happened 20 years ago. It’s happening today… this is not “old news” this is ongoing… in all denominations and religions, not just the Catholic Church.
adele wrote:
“The Church will not ever be able to exonerate itself in these matters no matter how many “memos” appear to the contrary.”
She should have written that SHe will never exonerate the Church, no matter what. The issue is not the Church’s ability to exonerate herself, but adele’s inability to exonerate the Church.
As for David, at first I had a great deal sympathy for him as a vivtim. I do not know, if he received any money at the time for his troubles, but he is also incapable to close the past, and from a victim he became a stubborn accuser. No matter what, just like adele, he is not goinmg to accept anything short of the resignation of the pope, who is absolutely innocent in this, as the later NY article (see references in my post above) explains.
The Church will not ever be able to exonerate itself in these matters no matter how many “memos” appear to the contrary. The scandal was too wide-spread and went on too long un-corrected, to believe the hierarchy was anything butcomplicit. Its demand for secrecy and little effort other than to sweep things under the rug has convicted them. Even when faced with gross mis-conduct they did little to nothing. That so much harm was done and so little concern other than the worry about how they would look in the eyes of the world disgusts the average person in the pew and contributes heavily to the lost credibility in our priests and bishops! The Pope is right! Now is the time to begin doing penance and reparation for the sins of all…let no one think he/she is worthy to throw stones!
David, I can keep my word about being quiet while others respond, as did liseux, above. However, you asked about Bill Donohue; so here is my response:
I strive to be fair-minded. As a young man I worked with an enjoyable man who the established office personnel non-pejoratively described as ‘gay’ (not yet called that, back then) and found no problem. Went to his party where I supposed some others there were like him but those were still closet-days and no one asked such questions. In another situation, I had to talk some young steeds out of their inclination to rough up a different gay person, their not understanding the homosexual inclination being very upsetting to them. It was irrational-fear based homophobia but not true hate. They finally listened to reason and faith and fairness arguments.
Fast forward to quite recent years, however, and we encounter the new “Hybrid-Homophobia” based on substituting “RATIONAL fear” for the term “IRRATIONAL fear” which is proper to the traditional definition of “homophobia”. What is alarmingly new is that it’s the homosexual community itself, perhaps unwittingly, inducing “Hybrid-Homophobia” in fair-minded Americans. This new rational form applyies well beyond the following specific example—to threats to other freedoms being disrespected by the LGBT community.
For example, when lesbians and gays of Catholic background invade Holy Mass to try to receive Holy Communion while wearing a rainbow sash or any other such symbol, they disrupt the right to spiritual peace at Mass - in at least two ways: 1) their symbol openly and seriously contradicts Christ’s doctrine on homosexuality as given by St. Paul and other sources and taught by the magisterium 2) they violate the First Amendment “free exercise thereof” clause protecting such events as worship by Church faithful at Holy Mass. Any forced-through local law to “allow” the disruption will be struck down by the Supreme Court.
David, you said “The church is not the pope. The church is community of all believers.” This seems to be the most illumination yet you have put on your “complicated” relationship with the Catholic Church. Your above 2nd sentence says you are definitely not at all a Catholic. No wonder you go after our pope. No doubt you will post something soon to try to counter what I say above in the spirit of truth and love; but being outside the Catholic Church, you simply will err from your not understanding her. Your high IQ will not be the reason.
Returning to your concern over Bill Donohue, would you post here the most significant URLs that led to your complaint about Mr. Donohue. I am not a member of the Catholic League. If he is in error I want to know but don’t have time to research the volumes he probably has put out. However, you already have specific URLs in mind and that will help a lot. My mother taught me to be fair to all people who are different in diverse ways, to value Truth and to respect God’s Church. Of course she was mainly exhibiting her embrace of the existence of the Natural Moral Law implanted in ALL our souls, whether Catholic or not, by God.
David, the pope has not been implicated, but I agree that we should be going after some superintendents and looking at the Secretary of Education.
The press brought the Kiesle case to light decades ago.
Odd that it brings it up AGAIN. To what end? To get the pope.
Nevermind going after the DA that gave Kiesle a 3-yr. suspended sentence.
The press is so determined to get the pope (big story, you know) I bet in a few days, they’ll change their angle and start saying that the pope is responsible for the molesting the priest did AFTER he married and was laicized.
You watch, David, that’s how ridiculous this is.
I think some of the biggest anti-Catholics are… Catholic. Like Maureen Dowd. To me, she is a professional anti-Catholic who makes money off of sucker-punching faithful nuns and other religious, among other things.
Where the Church is wrong, point it out and punish. Where the press prints half-truths and omits pertinent information, they too are guilty of a cover-up and false witness.
William:
It is clear to me that no amount of evidence would ever convince you that the Pope could do anything wrong. You clearly believe that this is a plot by Satan to harm the Church… but the Church has harmed itself… this is a self-inflicted wound. And they keep shooting themselves in the foot. Just awhile ago, Cardinal Bertone blamed homosexuals for the problem, repeating the old libel that pedophilia and homosexuality are linked in some way. And an Italian Bishop blamed the Jews.
I’m fed up with the Church living in denial about this… and treating a man who is manifestly and universally known to be one of the most powerful men in the world as if he can’t defend himself, and attacking the survivors like Bill Donohue has done (I notice you don’t mention any of that in your reply… how about excoriating him for his demonization of the victims, huh?) is dispicable.
The church has had bad popes before… it survived. The church is not the pope. The church is community of all believers.
David
David, after your April 10 AM post and then April 11 PM response referencing Fr. Fessio, I reviewed your remarks about the Catholic Church, about then-Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II. It then became clear how in Voltaire’s time that many observers could see his infamous “crush the infamy” theme as being directed against the Church, despite Voltaire’s denial.
In our times, your claiming to not be the Church’s enemy is followed by judgmental enemy-like chants against a Cardinal’s and JP2’s duty to be concerned with the great misuse of annulments and the huge numbers of priestly dispensations from celibacy occurring back then. Voltaire also showed no loving concern for the Church’s internal problems which Christ indicated will come and which become moral TESTS for reaction by ordinary Catholics, hierarchy—and by enemies of His Church.
Each of the first three numbered categories you give on April 10 have misleading terms and phrases, some simply wrong, all glibly thrown like spaghetti at the Church in hope some will stick. But your end sentence there can be true because the extreme of hating is not really needed, David, to simply weaken for a while the Church, its hierarchy and mission. Indeed egotism causes some enemies to get more satisfaction from seeing their enemy suffer rather than dead. That enables them to daily gloat with friends over their own cleverness. For your sake in eternity I hope you avoid that great sin.
In your over-simplifications, you read into then-CDF operations things not really known to you while ignoring other critical facts your biases set you against. Characteristically you assign the worst interpretation to key Church-individuals’ motives and concerns for carrying out their total Church duties. Finally you label Benedict XVI as one of the world’s most powerful men but in a most pejorative way: before that same world you immediately berate this current, most faithful, people-loving Vicar of Christ! The fact that a very wayward priest, quite far from the time of his terrible deeds (perhaps similar to what you sadly suffered) wrote to ask he be allowed to “die in the dignity of the priesthood” is USED by you in a way not at all supported by the record regarding then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s interaction with the Wisconsin priest’s case.
Whatever is your unexplained “complicated” relationship you cite with the Catholic Church, your demonstrated anxiousness to DO things that would hurt a sitting pope (by deliberate intent or not) and your attempt to put down John Paul II in the name of justice-as-you-see-justice while not even understanding the Church clearly tells faithful Catholics that you certainly are not one of us if indeed you are “Catholic”. Your personal “mission” also blinds you to certain good aspects of a secular legal system that includes “no wrongdoing admitted” settlements.
First, the need for such settlements is a consequence of human-inability thus far to design a system of complex INTERCONNECTED laws which help and never harm society. Were there no provision for such special settlements, in certain cases follow-up suits based on admitting wrongdoing could tie-up, cripple or destroy a defendant (which could be a temporarily troubled yet good-for-society organization) thus to make many truly innocent suffer, with insufficient justification for the “collateral damage” being FORCED upon them in the name of your “justice”. So, an enemy of the Catholic Church is against such settlements because he or she is denied a convenient tool to repeatedly harass the Church or simply to hurt her reputation permanently.
Second, since the Catholic Church has always held that she is the unblemished Bride of Christ, the use of “no wrongdoing admitted” by the Church is natural, unique and genuine, her unblemished divine nature long pre-existing today’s problematic secular-law systems. Secular organizations can’t quite make an analogous claim.
However, the claim does not mean that truly wayward Church members cannot be punished and many of them have, even if not soon enough in the past when true guilt existed, something being taken care of for the future by Benedict XVI as you perhaps saw, yesterday. Where you get too harsh is when you act as if you know that the Church’s case is really only a dodge based on “plausible deniability”, as you put it a few times. Jesus knows all about clever criticism-techniques, David. He especially likes: He who APPEARS to argue well is not always right!
We are all only a heartbeat away from our personal judgment at death by Christ, but not knowing our own personal moment. You are right now being tested by Jesus. For your own sake know that what you get away with here in words (before some readers) will not work with Jesus. The INTERCONNECTED Church matters which needed protection in the total Church situation back then with Ratzinger and JP2—appear not to matter to you and so you’ll face that serious problem with Christ should you soon be called. No doubt you have followers enjoying your posts; they will be unable to help you standing there alone before the King. Be wise, humble and more understanding, David, and that will heal you in your remaining days.
Though I don’t have an objective reason to expect you to admit that you just might be wrong in the intensity and in some of the aims you exhibit in diverse ways, I give you the last word to respond. I’ll be quiet and let others judge your response. I would hope that before you respond that you read the following two very recent articles, the first being the Vatican’s new “Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations”.
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html
The second is titled: Benedict XVI’s Papacy a Failure?
http://www.zenit.org/article-28882?l=english
Let us rejoice that the devil has lost most of his use of his last really BIG Natural-Temptation Tool, sex, to strike against the Church. He’ll come up with lesser temptations but the great price many already paid due to the sex scandal, especially by innocent victims including the deaf boys and you and innocent priests falsely charged, together with Pope Benedict’s changes will ensure no repeat of the past via that major temptation. Remember that for those getting to heaven, God more than makes up for whatever we suffer, here on earth. For healing while still here, a LOT depends on our attitude and willingness to forgive and to aid the mission of God’s Church.
First the PRAVDA, then the Wall Street Journal came to the Pope’s defense, and finaly the NYT realized it’s mistake in an OP ED piece that ends with a lefthanded praise of Card. Ratzinger i. e. Pope Benedict.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/opinion/12douthat.html?emc=eta1
liseux: When the Secretary of Education or the President is implicated in them not losing their teaching certificate, I’ll agree that it’s as big a deal. But how did you learn of this particular case? Must’ve been the press REPORTING ON IT???? If not, how did you learn of it? The press reports on these cases all the time… I’ve already given you several examples of how when it was a teacher and later a judge, the scandal was huge. The reason this is bigger than all the rest is that it implicates one of the most powerful men in the world. Not because that man is head of the Catholic Church. It’s that simple. Yes, there’s silly idiots out there saying stupid things… like “if only the Vatican ordained women” or “if only the Vatican changed its mind about homosexuality” or “if only priestly celibacy” or whathaveyou… those people are exploiting this. But equally, Bill Donohue is speaking even worse outrages… he is blaming the survivors, he believes that this is an “internal matter” and that it’s more about the personal sin of the priest than about the institution protecting predators. I read all the press with a grain of salt, including Bill Donohue and his bile. Equally, I question Maureen Dowd’s objectivity. What I object to, time and time again, is the excusing of this scandal by claiming that it is anti-catholic. Just because some anti-catholics speak up (which isn’t surprising) doesn’t mean there is nothing wrong here.
Scribe, I most certainly am not disillusioned or disoriented, though I’m sure you may judge me to be so. God is a big boy, I think He can handle this problem. I trust in Him and His mercy. And if He wills that B16 be drug through the mud for the transgressions of others then so be it, it will be for the best. He let His own son be crucified for our sake. Why would he not allow this holy servant to experience the same? B16 can handle it with God’s grace. That no one has asked each other yet in these posts where is the other person coming from and what is their position towards the church before entering into long drawn out discussions (including myself), is disturbing as I look back on it. Though I doubt anyone would answer honestly because everyone knows bias taints perception. And anyone wanting to look credible and persuade others of their position tends to hide their bias for this reason. This is what makes these posts such a waste of time. It’s troublesome too, to see how broken everyone is on both sides of the argument. And this brokenness is what lends each person their bias. I feel horrible for all these because the pain then turns to anger and clouds their vision and renders people incapable of seeing the truth in the others words. Christ most certainly will protect His Bride the Church, He said so. That does not mean we will not experience persecution and martyrdom. It also gives me great pause when I think of those who unjustly seek to discredit and dismantle His Bride (the institution/system). They remind me of Judah of whom Christ spoke about it being better for that man to never have been born. When you seek to change Christ’s Bride to suit yourself rather than change yourself to suit Christ’ Bride you pit yourself against God, not His believers. They’re just the collateral damage. He’s still in charge of everything. If it happened, He let it happen. Your beef is with Him. But it’s easier to fight with other broken souls who have no more power than you because you know how futile it is to fight against Him.
One more thing that really struck me, you said Scribe,” Instead, blaming the press, “shooting the messenger…”. If the press is just the “messenger”, then who is the originator of the message?
I’m done wasting my time now. Jimmy thank you and NCR for the opportunity to hone our apologetic skills or lack thereof. I hope all here find mercy and peace in Christ.
some people commenting here seem to be experiencing criticism of the Church with outrage and personal pain. It must be very disillusioning, even disorienting, to have the ethics and morality of an institution that has guided your life called into question. I think its all too much for some, like Marion. Because it is so threatenting, some are choosing not to believe it. Instead, blaming the press, “shooting the messenger”, suspecting a conspiracy to bring down the Church.
David said, “Until someone holds the hierarchy accountable, this scandal will continue, I promise you.”
Then why are there such progress in protecting children in the U.S., David?
“ABUSE SCANDAL IS NOT WIDENING”
April 9, 2010
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest developments in the sexual abuse scandal:
Every news story and commentary stating that the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is widening is factually wrong. The evidence shows just the opposite—it has been contracting for approximately a quarter century. Here’s the proof: the John Jay College of Criminal Justice—not exactly an arm of the Catholic Church—has shown repeatedly that the vast majority of the abuse cases took place from the mid-60s to the mid-80s. And the reports over the last five years show a rapid decline. The latest report, covering 2008-2009, shows exactly six credible allegations made against over 40,000 priests and tens of thousands of others working for the Catholic Church.
Almost all of the chatter about the alleged widening of the scandal is a direct result of media sensationalism. Here is a perfect example, taken from a Reuters story today. The headline reads, “Norway’s Catholic Church Reveals New Abuse Cases.” But what is new is not a new wave of incidents, rather it is an admission by the Norwegian Catholic Church of four cases of alleged abuse that it had not previously disclosed. Two of the cases date back to the 1950s; another dates back two decades; and the fourth one was based on “rumors.”
The same Reuters story opens by saying these four stories come “two days after it [the Norwegian Catholic Church] revealed that a bishop who resigned last year did so after abusing an altar boy.” That makes it sound like a Church cover-up. Only at the end of the story does the reader learn that the reason why this story did not emerge until this week is precisely because the victim initially asked that it not be made public.
There is no other religious or secular institution being cherry-picked by lawyers and the media like that of the Catholic Church. If what happened in the 1950s qualifies as news when it happened in the Catholic Church, then surely it would be news to learn of all those who were abused a half-century ago by ministers, rabbis, school teachers and others. But it will never happen—such news fails to make the media salivate.”
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1825
David, you’re dead wrong about the teacher’s certificates being revoked.
Just last week there was a report of a teacher abuser who was passed on:
“• A teacher at Olin High School in Iowa was charged with sexually exploiting a freshman. This same teacher faced similar charges two years ago when he taught in another school, and was simply moved from one school district to another.“http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1822
Pope Benedict opened up old cases of abuse when he came to head the CDF, as well as spear-headed policies so that abuse cases would be handled more quickly.
You kick against the goad when you try to nail Benedict for this,David.
No peep at all by the media. If this was a Catholic priest, it would have been reported world-wide.
If the pope was merciless in rooting out liberation theology men, you should give him credit for that. Do you have any stats on how many were laicized. Do your homework.
All I can say is that if the College of Teachers didn’t revoke the teaching certificates of pedophile teachers, there would be just as big a hew and cry about it.
The Catholic Church, by not defrocking these perverts, sent a message that it tolerated this behaviour. It continues to send this message when this is explained away as anti-Catholic or as just the fault of homosexual boys (like Bill Donohue said) and not a big deal.
Until someone holds the hierarchy accountable, this scandal will continue, I promise you.
The Pope was merciless in rooting out “liberal” theologians and depriving them of the “dignity” of their positions, but if a pedophile wanted to “die in the dignity of his priesthood,” well, let him, by all means, after all, not a very important thing, since he just abused boys who were probably homosexual anyway.
Do you people know how your lament sounds to everybody? It screams to the world that you just don’t care… and worse, to the victims (like me) that we are somehow the “problem” and if we would just go away, and not sue or make it public, well, then the church could protect it’s precous reputation, which is is most deservedly losing right now.
The church has yet to send an unequivocal message to the world and to the victims that it was the hierarchy that erred. They still side with the pedophiles in court cases, filing briefs that the church is in no way accountable. If a man comes to the church and asks for them to pay for counseling, they insist upon a non-disclosure agreement so the priest can’t be charged. The church is rotten in this matter, and that rottenness needs airing out.
Rotten rotten rotten filth protected by Pope Benedict when he was a Cardinal. Filth!
David, you say that defrocking protects the priesthood, the profession, etc.
I don’t think you really care about the reputation of the priesthood.
I don’t care so much for it either if we can keep the kids safe.
Fr. Fessio has pointed out the major point: defrocking does not prevent molestation (nor does getting married!).
The laicization angle is just a method to try to get at the pope.
No one is thinking of going after the distric attorney or the lawyers who gave the molester 3 yrs. suspended sentence for his crimes. This enabled him to molest again, at least 13 counts…..
Between the time he was arrested and his defrocking, no further charges were brought forth. Pretty much could argue that defrocking him gave him full reign of terror.
To go after the pope on this one leaves pie on your face and on the media’s pokered face.
William: Fr. Fessio is just playing with words. Defrocking doesn’t protect children, okay… I get that, but it DOES protect the priesthood, the profession, the hierarchy, etc. In other words, all professions, including this one, are supposed to properly police their members and remove those who violate the code of ethics laid down. That there was more concern in this about divorce or celibacy is nonsense… if that’s the case, then JP2 and Cardinal Ratzinger had there sense of values all out of order, and thus need the kind of public scrutiny they are currently experiencing. Benedict XVI is one of the most powerful men in the entire world… when he was Cardinal Ratzinger he spend many years searching out theologians like Hans Kung and others and stripping them of their positions… where was the desire to search out the sickos and perverts and publically excoriate them? Nowhere… instead, they were allowed to “die in the dignity of the priesthood” and received pastoral care… meanwhile the boys are blamed by people like Bill Donohue for being pubescent and perhaps homosexual. In all these ways, the boys (like me) are being revictimized right and left.
I should also point out that here in Canada it was revealed recently that the National Parole Board issued a pardon for Graham James, the junior hockey coach who was convicted of molesting Sheldon Kennedy and one other hockey player, and who has been accused of doing the same to Theo Fleury. This story has been on the front page, top story on the evening news, etc. Getting as much or more press than the Vatican scandal.
THE PRESS IS NOT BEING ANTI-CATHOLIC… THE PRESS IS REPORTING ON THESE SCANDALS WHEREVER THEY OCCUR.
This is not some anti-Catholic conspiracy.
Stephen, from your self-description as committed Catholic, before drawing any conclusion re your reading-suggestion to us, above (i.e., 2:07 AM yesterday, Saturday morning), consider first reading Fr. Fessio:
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/04/lets-get-the-story-straight-defrocking-and-divorce-fr-joseph-fessio-sj.html
(he does not use any form of the term “laicize” but estimates dispensation from the solemn celibacy-promise which accompanies valid laicization was the reason for CDF’s involvement way back then).
Then consider one by Fr. Zuhlsdorf:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/ap-throwing-more-spaghetti-at-pope-benedict-this-time-from-california/
The AP and Hell’s Bible pieces within Fr. Z’s article are explained by him via intra-text comments in square brackets [ …. ]. It seems best to read the shorter “Hell’s Bible” one first. In one bracket there, the phrase “Therefore many years before the Kiesle case” should, I believe, read “Therefore many years after the Kiesle case”. Fr. Z gives some good points about dates and “boilerplate” as related to Ratzinger’s duties, way back, changes in CDF scope, etc.:
My conclusion after reading what you suggested and the two above is that the media and whoever else might be in the “self-inflicted-darkness conspiracy” have two strikes on them in this late inning and a cripple sent to hopelessly hobble ‘round the bases without getting caught.
Thanks to Lori for the above references via:
http://subcreators.com/blog/2010/04/10/once-more-unto-the-breach/
I simply pointed out that the cases of abuse of students in public schools ARE indeed reported on in the press and not infrequently. A few years ago here in Vancouver a teacher named Tom Ellison was tried for sexually assaulting something like 16 high school girls who took part in a special programme of which he was in charge. It was revealed in the press that the school officials had done nothing about this man’s behaviour, despite information that they had. This scandal was FRONT-PAGE-NEWS for weeks and weeks here. So far, the current scandal about the Catholic Church has NOT BEEN ON THE FRONT PAGE. The press DOES report on this kind of thing regarding other institutions… another case in point in BC… a juvenile court judge in Prince George, BC was found to have coerced dozens of girls who were in the juvenile court system into having sex with him. This again was FRONT PAGE NEWS for weeks on end… the press had a field day reporting on the issue of judicial abuse of power and position, and calling for reform. So again, the press DOES IN FACT REPORT ON THESE KINDS OF SCANDALS IN INSTITUTIONS OTHER THAN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Therefore, this reporting is not an instance of anti-Catholicism or Catholic defamation. Whether the current charges prove to be true or not… the press is behaving absolutely normally in this regard.
Liseux, it’s apparent that many people question the criminality of a high school senior who’s 18-21 years of age having sex with one of their teachers. They’re generally considered to be consenting adults by that age.
And even without that particular 50-year vs 90 day law, public schools generally enjoy a level of protection under the law that other persons or groups do not enjoy, and there are a variety of reasons why that has been held to be constitutional.
Not so incorrect, John. Some seniors are 18, 19, up to 21 while still in school. But, I thank you for the light.
So do you agree with the 90 days on public schools for 18-yr. olds while the Catholics could have had a 50-yr. old statute of limitations?
Liseux, your claim that “a child abused on Columbus Day this school year would be out of luck” is incorrect. The law states the 90-day clock does not begin ticking until the child turns 18 years of age. Therefore, a victim of childhood sex abuse by a public school teacher, for instance, has 90 days after turning 18 to file notice of a claim.
Also Markey’s bill would not have lifted the statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions of child abuse. Rather, it affected only civil lawsuits for damages.
David wrote: “Here’s the difference we’re talking about. When you discovered these perverts, did you do nothing, or did you take action to protect the children (reasonable action given your position and authority to do so)?”
That is correct. Back in the 1970s and 1980s a small number of priests behaved as monsters, and a small number of bishops protected them. It was a tiny minority of priests and bishops; new rules and procedures have been put in place in nearly every diocese to ensure that this malfeasance has since been corrected.
You didn’t know that, David, did you?
Because the newspapers don’t bother to tell you, and you didn’t bother to dig around to find it out, did you.
I don’t blame you. You’re not a Catholic. You don’t feel as if a 2 x 4 has been blasted through your chest every time you read this kind of news about *your* beloved church. It’s not your religion. They’re not *your* neighbor’s and fellow church member’s babies being harmed. Why the h_ll would you bother to try to get to the bottom of it?
I don’t expect that. But you would think that the newspapers, who are supposedly all about “the American People’s Right To Know the Full Fact” would do that digging and present that updated information so as to give a fair and complete in context picture.
But they don’t. The media don’t do their job. Their lameness is exceeded only by their bogosity.
And so you, David, are left with a distorted picture that paints the Catholic Church as something slightly better than a bunch of vampires.
So much for responsible journalism.
The “American People’s Right To Know,” my foot!
“When teachers are caught molesting their students, the school officials suspend them immediately, turn over the information to the police and actions begin to remove their teaching certificates so that they will no longer be able to teach. The school officials don’t . . . seek to cover up the scandal by sending the teacher to another school in another district.”
I’m not surprised to think you believe this myth. The fact is the public schools have done this and still do it today. But you didn’t know that, did you, David. Most people don’t know it, either. And you don’t know it because the news media by not doing their job and reporting instances of public school officials doing precisely that in the newspapers as *PROMINENTLY* and as *FREQUENTLY* as they report about the scandals in Catholic circles have deliberately cultivated that impression.
“If the teaching profession failed to police its own ranks, yes indeed it would come into disrepute and people might be throwing stones at schools and losing respect for teachers.”
Not if it’s not made public when public school teachers, fathers, boyfriends, scout leaders, Protestant clergy, etc. do the exact same thing. What, do you think people are psychic and know about these doings without anyone telling them? If the victims tell only their families; the perpetrators hush it up, and the news media are wittingly or unwittingly colluding in the silence, how is anyone supposed to know, David?
“The issue here today is: 1) the Catholic hierarchy knew that these priests were molesting boys, and instead of protecting children, moved these perverts around from parish to parish and sought to cover up the scandal… this is undisputed as we know it was the case in Boston and other diocese; 2) there is evidence coming to light that this was not only a local matter, but one in which the Vatican itself conspired . . .”
Obviously the flimsiest of evidence, by the way. I’m surprised at you, David.
3) there is evidence that the Pope, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, was involved in such cover-ups and improper and unprofessional practices, arguing that the reputation of the church was of paramount concern; 4) any profession that fails to police its members in terms of ethical standards, etc. will lose the respect of the mass of the population.
This is why this scandal is NOT about hating the Church or defaming Catholics.”
Fine. I don’t expect you to go out and get your hands and face dirty researching the details of all this filth, talking to people, reading news archives for background. I don’t expect you to be sick-at-heart, and filled with loathing and horror over what has happened. It’s not your church, so why should you give a sh*t, right? All I’m saying is, before you pile on, get up to speed on the facts as they really are, not as they have been presented in the news media which appears to have its own agenda of painting its ideological and political enemy, the Catholic Church, in the worst light possible.
Or, go ahead, and don’t do the research, and pile on anyway. Several million others are already doing so; one more won’t make much difference.
If it were me, though, I’d want to know. I care very much about knowing the truth and about not being manipulated or fed a load of malarkey by anybody if I can help it.
Your mileage may vary.
Another case of David’s hypocrisy:
The New York state Assemblywoman Markey wanted to open up the statute of limitations on private institutions (read Catholic Church) going back to the last 50 years on sexual abuse cases. She would have left the 90-limit as is on public school abuse.
So a person who was molested in a Catholic school 50 years ago could sue the pants off the Church, but a child abused on Columbus Day this school year would be out of luck.
Thankfully, a Catholic assemblyman along with other assemblymen of good will realize that they should open up the statue of limitations on ALL cases. Let all be prosecuted equally.
Well, Ms. Markey’s bill was defeated, in part because she knew that prosecuting 50 yrs. of public school abuse would bankrupt the state of New York.
What a double standard, and what hypocrisy in what happened AND in the reporting of it.
It’s reported all the time in your hometown…. well then don’t you think there is a PROBLEM?
Shouldn’t you be rattling the cages of the public school officials?
Why is it always going on, David?
Guidelines are worth nothing when teachers and principals don’t FOLLOW them.
David, how many cases of sexual abuse were documented in the Catholic Church last year in the U.S.? Six….. (six too many)
The Catholic League pointed the AP to SIX cases in one WEEK, which the AP failed to pick up on.
Sure we have had abuse in the Church AND cover-ups, but it’s STILL going on in the public school to a greater degree and not being reported on.
Prosecute all and report all equally.
That is not happening- witness all the old cases about the Church, and all the new cases of public school abuse IGNORED.
I would also add that in most places the teaching profession has clear guidelines for dealing with such cases. When those guidelines are not followed, then the teaching profession will come into disrepute. The Catholic hierarchy are no different in this regard.
It is reported all the time in my hometown… when a teacher is accused of sexual interference with a student… it makes the papers every single time it happens… it is followed up on, and we hear about it when the teacher has his/her certificate revoked. While not every place may be the same in this regard, the simple fact is that the teaching profession has recognized the necessity of open and above board dealings in regards to this matter and when they College of Teachers (the certifying board in my province) receives a complaint it takes action. It would scandalous if they didn’t. And I’m sure the press would create a stink about it, and if such a case comes to light, then so be it… let the stink begin.
The Catholic Church cannot and should not be immune from public scrutiny. And all professions (and the priethood is a profession) have ethical standards and requirements. The Catholic hierarchy are responsible for maintaining the standards and for dealing with the consequences when they are violated.
The evidence is that the church covered this up, often did nothing, and in many cases refused to discipline such persons. This is shocking. And it is extremely shocking. And if there is evidence that the highest levels of the hierarchy were complicit in this, then we need to know it. There is no other way to make it known (in our system) than through the media. The media is doing it’s job. Now it’s time for the hierarchy to do theres and take a bold stand, and not hide behind baseless accusations about media bias.
David, your last post in incredibly inaccurate, and I’d say truly naive. Perhaps malicious, but that’s up to God to judge, not me.
Listening to you and the secular media, cover-ups of abuse are only going on in Catholic schools.
Very far from the truth.
According to the National Catholic Register, 2.10.08, Sherryll Kraizer, executive director ofr the Denver-based Safe Child Program, said it is comon-place for principals and teachers to neglect laws that reure them to report sexual abuse.
“I see it regulary. There are law against failing to report, but the law is almost never enforced. Almost never, ” said Kraizer.
Case in point: the Catholic League pointed out 6 cases of teacher sex abuse that were reported LAST WEEK in various states, one a cover-up where a teacher was allowed to move around, yet the Associated Press declined to print any of them.
Instead, the AP chose to report on Chilean Catholic “priestly” abuse.
So much for fair and balanced…..
The media is manipulating the information about the “1985 letter.”
I’m not going to get my panties in a was like I did over the Wisconsin priest, when it turned out to be SHODDY JOURNALISM.
Also, Dave, defrocking is one thing- the diocese has the responsibility to keep the man away from minors. He can still be kept from minors if he’s not castrated of his priestly faculties.
So learn your terms and what they entail.
Marion:
Here’s the difference we’re talking about.
When you discovered these perverts, did you do nothing, or did you take action to protect the children (reasonable action given your position and authority to do so)? Or did you suggest that these perverts should be allowed to “die in the dignity of their family” or worry more about the scandal it might cause among the neighbours and seek to do your best to keep that quiet, rather than protect the children?
When teachers are caught molesting their students, the school officials suspend them immediately, turn over the information to the police and actions begin to remove their teaching certificates so that they will no longer be able to teach. The school officials don’t argue “let the teacher die in the dignitity of their teaching certificate” or seek to cover up the scandal by sending the teacher to another school in another district.
If the teaching profession failed to police its own ranks, yes indeed it would come into disrepute and people might be throwing stones at schools and losing respect for teachers.
The issue here today is: 1) the Catholic hierarchy knew that these priests were molesting boys, and instead of protecting children, moved these perverts around from parish to parish and sought to cover up the scandal… this is undisputed as we know it was the case in Boston and other diocese; 2) there is evidence coming to light that this was not only a local matter, but one in which the Vatican itself conspired; 3) there is evidence that the Pope, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, was involved in such cover-ups and improper and unprofessional practices, arguing that the reputation of the church was of paramount concern; 4) any profession that fails to police its members in terms of ethical standards, etc. will lose the respect of the mass of the population.
This is why this scandal is NOT about hating the Church or defaming Catholics.
David
Please read the *New York Times* article on the letter in which Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger opposed the immediate laicization of Stephen Kiesle and come to your own conclusions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?hp
I believe that it is essential to read the entire document trail, which the article makes available.
Keep and spread the Faith.
We’ve reached that point in some of these “debates” where it is useless to continue the back and forth because certain debaters readily go from one unsatisfactory-to-them point to another, implying the Church remains unjust and hypocritical and must reform & repent to their specifications. As Marion, here, and George Weigel, appearing on The World Over point out, there is no fairness of press treatment of the same type of sexual problem in the public schools and in other institutions even though they dwarf the occurrences in Catholic settings.
Christ warned there would be attacks by disguised-wolves. Those debaters who truly know what the Church is, the ever unblemished Bride of Christ, will demand nothing suggesting the Bride is blemished. In contrast, Church detractors will hedge in their commitment to her as the One True Church while perhaps professing to love her. Recall that when asked by Jewish good-faith questioners, John Paul II informed his questioners that while members of the Church on earth are blemished, the Church herself is not.
The NYT demonstrated that the case against member Benedict XVI isn’t the case they assumed they had. Those who know the courage, goodness, fairness and intelligence of Benedict XVI—over the decades – rightly trust his Spirit-aided judgment as pope, for steering the Barque of Peter, today. This includes his speaking on his own about this problem when he, as the pope, thinks it proper to do so—and his having the hierarchy exercise the important principle of SUBSIDIARITY because Jesus wants that to be a sign of LOCAL responsibility within His Church. Like most people new to a very tough job, then CDF Prefect Cardinal Ratzinger was on a learning curve, as Stephen noted that Jimmy Akin indicated in another blog that such is plausible.
Indeed, even for papal guidance by the Holy Spirit, under strict operation of the Charism of Infallibility, the protection from error exists only as a ‘negative protection’, meaning the pope is not inspired but must struggle (pray, study, question) to reach conclusions ultimately protected from error if the Charism is employed. As Prefect for CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger was not covered by the Charism. Part of God’s “hiding” from obvious detection is to let us struggle with problems and to make mistakes along the way, such as we find in all human endeavors. God’s “hiding” preserves the need for faith – THE major gift God wants from each of us. The two millennia old magisterium of bishops deciding and acting in full communion with the pope can hide the presence of the Spirit in the normal Council struggles and foibles occurring among the bishops before a final vote is taken.
Some who are seriously against the Bride of Christ want to punish anything less than ‘infallible performance’, using to the hilt a false posturing that Cardinal priests MUST be held to THAT higher bar or be arrested and tried at the UN!
True appreciators of Christ’s Church also know that not only does the Church have a vital ONGOING mission adversely affecting Multi-MILLIONS in extreme ways should she bend to undue interference, the Church has enemies who will try to seriously disrupt her mission.
Therefore, anyone claiming to be supportive of the Bride of Christ while willing to disrupt and endanger her main and difficult mission until they are personally satisfied with results—is truly against the Bride. Instead and perhaps unwittingly, they become the source of even GREATER injustices than the examples they may rightly complain about – due to their interferences with Church Shepherds. Meanwhile the vast majority of hierarchy, those not seriously blemished, are working to clean the house and set up preventive measures without allowing too much harm to the scattered flocks.
What faithful Catholic laity need to do is to publish everywhere the truth about how sex scandals are being handled - or dodged - in OTHER institutions and groups. The Catholic Church can stand such comparison as a biased media is exposed for its infidelity to truth in journalism. At any given *breaking news* moment it can be as Marion described. So, don’t worry but do encourage the publishing of facts, else the ignorant can hurt the world by wrong voting, for example. What Church haters fear is that Benedict’s plan to limit future sex scandals will deny them a convenient target useful for advancing their own agenda in conflict with God. Satan is running out of BIG temptations like sex, to exploit. Pray for the young people, good priests and present Pope, all victimized in various ways in the wake of a now diminishing scandal. Finally, protect the Bride from the wolves. Springtime will come!
” . . . hard to defend our church leaders while still looking intelligent and not extremely blind and gullible.”
It would appear that there is little percentage in us attempting to “defend our church leaders” against specific charges in specific cases. We can’t possibly know the whole story in each and every case presented to us; we know only what’s being printed in the newspapers and broadcast on TV, on the one hand, and what’s claimed by the Vatican and bishops on the other hand.
I do know that, as the schoolmate of a 6th grade girl who was being raped repeatedly by her older sister’s husband, and was afraid to tell for fear her sister would be angry at her; as the sister of a woman who was raped at 16 by an older young man, who became pregnant, gave birth and gave the child up for adoption, as the relative of a woman who discovered her husband had been raping their six children (boys and girls) and was “grooming” two more nephews for the same treatment; and as the co-worker of a woman whose husband raped his 8-year-old niece and was molesting his own 3-month-old infant daughter, that there is little to defend in the actions of any adult-on-child sexual predator functioning in any capacity that gives him access to children and young people, or in the actions of those who cover up for or defend them.
I also know, this ain’t just a Catholic Church thing. And I know also that instances of this by Catholic clergy take the loathsomeness and ignominy of these sorts of crimes against innocent children to undreamed-of depths.
How do you “defend” loathsomeness and ignominy? You don’t.
It’s important, though, to defend the right of those who have not been proven guilty to enjoy freedom from suspicion, slander, and hate. Good and decent priests, who don’t deserve it, have been targeted for opprobium, in part, I think because the news media has chosen to keep the spotlight narrowly focussed on the Catholic Church and have chosen to give immensely less coverage to these kinds of crimes taking place within other faith communities, in the public schools, in private homes. And it is endemic in these situations, every bit as much if not more so. This, I believe, is a kind of lying, too, in a way - to direct the public’s attention to factual and reprehensible crimes that are perpetrated almost everywhere, really, but to direct the preponderance of the attention time and time again to just one institution or one faith community, to the near-exclusion of nearly all others. The impression is created in the public mind that that one institution is a veritable hotbed of the most loathsome criminals; its culture is one that forms and nurtures vice. And comparable groups and communities where the exact same thing is going on? . . . Not so much. So the public has a misperception about this whole topic going into the discussion; how can anyone defend anything . . . even innocent men . . . against all *that*?
Answer: they can’t.
I would say, the only intelligent and reasonable thing is to recognize that you can’t. I would also say that if you *are* truly intelligent and reasonable, then you needn’t worry about whether or not you “look” it; the people whose opinions are worth caring about will be able to tell just by talking with you, and the people who can’t tell, aren’t worth worrying about.
Stephen, I just saw the same story on Foxnews.com headlined: “Future Pope Stalled Pedophile Case, Defrocking Priest.” Say what you want about the sketchy evidence in the Milwaukee deaf school case, this new case, plus others that are sure to come out, are making it quite hard to defend our church leaders while still looking intelligent and not extremely blind and gullible.
As a committed Catholic, I’m extremely sorry to say that Jimmy Akin’s phrase “smoking gun memo” may have just taken on a new, and disturbing, significance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612457.stm
David, you say that the Church has not done enough. What would you have it do? The Pope, as Prefect of the CDF, centralized things with the CDF. Investigations are under way. Where the local bishops have not done enough, he has taken them to task publicly. He admits that things were handled wrongly in the past and has acted to change that. And yet he continues to get hammered with how things were handled 20-30 years ago.
There will never be “enough” to satisfy some, and I fear that you might be among that list of “some”.
Jennifer and Stephen:
My deepest prayer is for healing for all.
My feeling is that the Holy Father needs to take charge of this matter and stop leaving it for the peanut gallery.
Some people are saying very hurtful and thoughtless things… out of some (misguided?) fear that this is about anti-catholic feeling.
The Catholic church is unique among all religions for it’s highly centralized system and the placing of one man at the centre.
Given this structure it is vital that either B16 speak up directly, or he create a special commission to investigate these matters and report back to him, and let the chips fall where they may. He can stop all this naysaying pretty easily. Why doesn’t he? Bad advice? Or he knows there’s worse to come?
Bad Bishops are not good for the Catholic Church. We know pedophile priests aren’t good for it either.
And people who rush to attack the survivors (e.g., Bill Donohue) certainly don’t help either.
David
David, for your own peace of mind and mental health it might be better for you to check out of this one. You’re going to drag yourself down trying to respond/reply to every post. I saw that post earlier today myself and had to go back through all the posts to see why one would come to that conclusion. I could not find why so I had to assume that person must be very broken also and in need of Christ and His Church. This controversy that pits broken people against each other is doing just what it was meant to do, make us all bicker and fight with one another. Don’t give into the temptation to do that. Wish I wouldn’t give into it from time to time myself. It always leaves me feeling stupid and thinking I should have known better. It is perfectly understandable the position from which you are coming. Your anger about what happened to you is legitimate. And though this does not excuse that previous post or any of the mean angry retorts back and forth, there are other people who are also very broken who rely/depend on the Church (institution) like a mother. And they will do anything to defend their mother. And I think that is why you see people so fiercely defend the hierarchy. Peace of Christ to you Brother David. I may never see your face this side of heaven, but I sure hope we meet as friends on the other side.
I thank David for having returned to this discussion.
We should all note Jimmy Akin’s prudent qualifications in another blog entry: “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.”
The church has not done nearly enough. And the Pope is not a child in need of protection, he’s one of the most powerful men in the entire world. The children needed protecting. The survivors need compassion. Instead you get idiots like Bill Donohue claiming that this is about personal sin, and not institutional error. Sorry, it’s about the institution at this point, and it’s credibility. And the church is quite obviously not doing what it needs to do. I hope Benedict will… but so far, I’m not seeing any signs of it, and the shameful attacks upon the critics and now the survivors (i.e., Bill Donohue) indicates to me that there is plenty more to be revealed, and it’s not going to look good.
David has willingly misstated the facts over and over and over again. You say X and Y should be done and ignore when the church has indeed done X and Y. You ignore the accurate translation. You ignore the good faith by which others have acted, instead demonizing their every motive.
Sorry, I’m not going to play ball. You are wrong. Sorry, but that is the truth.
Amen to that! I second what Marion said.
“a truth and reconciliation ministry using South Africa as an example could be established in every diocese . . . This ministry should be open for anyone who wants to tell their story, regardless of where the abuse occurred: home, school, family, church, neighborhood, scouts or summer camp, wherever.”
Fantastic idea! And much needed! So many people living with so much pain might well be helped by this. My brother-in-law’s cousin’s six kids, raped by their own alleged Dad - the boys as well as the girls. That vermin is in the lock-up now for the rest of his life getting bashed around by Hell’s Angels. Heh. My co-worker’s daughter - ditto. Entire families nuked, basically. And survivors of abuse by predators functioning as priests. Something we might actually maybe be able to do for them in addition to prayer . . . Thank you!
William, thanks for your support. I think the NYT is beyond caring, though, as is its ever-dwindling number of readers. We have an excellent opportunity in the blogosphere to get the word out to those willing to hear it.
Maybe all the hullabaloo will eventually get them to print a retraction or correction, but I doubt it.
Can anything legally or financially be done for the people abused by Father Murphy? Also, in what ways can we understand how authorities in the Church handled these cases in light of the era, times, they occured in? How willing would a family be to make the case of their abused child publically known then or now?
David: a truth and reconciliation ministry using South Africa as an example could be established in every diocese. I think that the listeners should come from the laity, but at the same time a ministry of the church. Too, by laity from the pews from all walks of life; a caregiver’s healing ministry. The stories should be recorded as part of our history as a guide for prevention.
This ministry should be open for anyone who wants to tell their story, regardless of where the abuse occurred: home, school, family, church, neighborhood, scouts or summer camp, wherever. Anonymity insured but an attempt to seek justice and retribution from the guilty when possible.
Control of the discourse should not be in the hands of the media or church hierarchy but by the laity.
Peace,
James
Unless I miss something very big, the conflict between Lori Pieper’s early professional translation of the minutes originally written in Italian for that key 1998 CDF meeting in Rome, principally between Archbishop Weakland & staff and then-CDF-Secretary Bertone & staff, and the unprofessional “machine-translation” of the minutes used by the careless New York Times’ staff—is a Gift from God.
As Lori has on her site at her article’s end, an Italian newspaper confirms the critical translation problems Lori first exposed for us.
http://subcreators.com/blog/2010/04/01/what-really-happened-at-the-cdf/
Let all good Catholics demand free space in the NYT, say, for Lori to set out the facts and opine on anything else she thinks necessary to protect Catholicism from future journalistic arrogance. We do not owe the Times any quid pro quo for use of adequate space, such as our being expected to make demands on Benedict XVI or on our Catholic Church to Reform itself in some “overhaul” way. What Benedict has been doing and will be doing is just what is needed to protect future innocent youth and also excellent priests who are faithful to God.
However, both NYT writer Maureen Dowd and disciplined priest Rev. Robert Nugent are now calling for MAJOR changes that go beyond correcting circumstances aiding the terrible sinning of a small percent of Church clerics. Rev. Nugent, for example, in an Easter Sunday newspaper article of 900 words, cries out for “radical reform and authentic renewal from top to bottom, this is it”:
http://www.ydr.com/opinion/ci_14808483
Ironically for Rev. Nugent, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who rightly disciplined him and his partner Sr. Jeannine Gramick in their “New Ways Ministry”, years ago, forbidding them to continue their problematic work in the gay community. Sorry, New York Times, God is wiser that you! And to Jimmy Akin and NCR, heartfelt thanks and blessings!
Thanks Jimmy for the updates that I use to combat the misinformation by the secular media.
You give me the weaponry to fight the good fight.
God bless,
Mary Ann
cathyf wrote: “I’m with you, Dave. I can’t figure out what Elsa or Marion are trying to say . . .”
cathyf, for quite some time now I’ve been trying to work out for myself what all this means. Perhaps you have, too. Perhaps lots of people have. As Catholics, what are we to make of these scandals? What are we to do about them? What are we to think? And how are we to act? What are we to say? How are we to respond? (When I say “we” I mean Catholic students, housewives, truck-drivers, secretaries, etc. who are also active in their parish.)
I do worry about the victims. I’m a woman, and a lot of women might confide that for most of their lives they have been or know of girls and young teens in their lives being sexually abused in their own homes. We’ve sat with girlfriends, cousins, sisters, neighbors who’ve cried on our shoulder. We’ve gone to the family therapy sessions and testified in court and in parole hearings. Professional counseling and the support of close family and friends have usually helped tremendously. Seeing the perp sent to prison does, too. I guess an awful lot of us assume that what sees most women victims of domestic sexual abuse might be expected to see most male victims of adult-on-child abuse by predators functioning as Catholic priests. I am certainly open to learning more about the Church’s victims’ needs, though.
Then with all that’s going on in politics (we live in the Washington, DC area) it’s been: Where is this country going? Where are we headed? And our whole society - Western culture - where is it headed? Are we on the right track? Or are we moving away from the right track?
I do believe that God does have the whole world in His hand, that He leads and guides all of us, and that our main goal is to be happy with Him one day in Heaven. But there can be a lot of bumps in the road between here and there. Where will this road take us here on Earth?
I think from the experience of yesterday, and being on “sabbatical” at work today, a new thought came to me, which I would like to share with you - please, see if it is of any value (it may not be).
My thought is simply this: scandals, wars, political persecution, lawsuits, culture wars, terrorism, and so on are not Satan’s best weapons against the Church. The enemies of the Church attempts to rip apart the reputation of the Catholic Church, of the Holy Father the Pope, of the bishops, and so on has harmed and will continue to harm many souls. Mockery, blasphemy, and so on are very harmful and damaging. But the anger and hate that animate persecution, wars, blasphemy, slander, and so on will attract a certain small number of people who like that sort of thing, and go for it. But the vast majority of normal people are drawn to those who exhibit sincere kindliness, affability, and a willingness to meet them on their own level, who show a genuine concern for their individual welfare. People with *heart*, real *heart*. Not *mind*. *Mind* alone doesn’t win people over. Win their hearts, and their minds will follow, applies to most people. And the segment who have those qualities in spades are Christians in general, and Catholics in particular.
I think also that Catholics and Protestants are often described as “smug”, “superior”, “arrogant” by non-Christians What I have learned here, I think, is that most people will get past a certain amount of “smugness” and “superiority” in their interlocutor if they perceive in their interlocuto a warmth, and a genuineness, and an empathy. These latter qualities, I think, will get the vast majority of folks quickly past any momentary annoyance with the other’s perceived arrogance. If the interlocutor, however, should be smug, arrogant, and cold and unwilling to engage, then they’re dead in the water in terms of outreach to the majority of their fellow souls. And that’s where Catholics have the enemies of the Catholic Church beat hands-down, and every which way to Sunday. Jesus Christ Himself is irresistibly winsome, and that’s who the Church has to offer to others. Others will be drawn to Him.
My final thought, and then I will close, is that what draws souls away from Christ is not so much wars, scandals, blasphemy, or persecution, although these do: the thing that really sucks souls from the Church is a preoccupation with oneself and with one’s own creature comforts, status, and so on. If my whole life is about me, me, me, and getting what I want, and more, and more . . . then Christ is not in me, and I am not in Him. *That’s* the destroyer of souls and the acrid smoke surrounding the Church.
The enemies of the Church can do nothing *lasting*, although they can harm some souls. The main thing for me to do, therefore, is to pray for souls and to work on their behalf.
Anyway, enough from me. You’re probably all asleep. Farewell, and may God bless us, every one.
No, Sandor. I did not say the NYT is or is not lying, nor did I say the Pope is or is not lying or that he has anything to confess. After all, how would I know? But I have heard that the Pope does go to confession. Perhaps your mind may have twisted what you read such that you thought I said otherwise and thus provoked yourself.
Posted by Elsa on Wednesday, Apr 7, 2010 2:02 PM (EST):Matthew, “You’re arguing that the CDF was at fault… You’re attacking the Pope,” Nooooo, I’m not. Of course, if you read my posts with a presumption of ill will, you may well find what you put into it.
.No, Elsa!
You have an obvious pro NYT and anti Pope bias. NYT is NOT lying, but the Pope must have something to confess.
You have a twisted mind.
I suggest that we forget this provocateour, donát respond to her, and she willgo away.
Jennifer O, like I said, I share the truth. Dave Mueller wrote, “As far as I can tell, she is saying that she doesn’t know anything, and we shouldn’t think we know anything either”. I might concede that point to Dave, if I knew it to be true. I might also concede a point to you, Jennifer, if I knew it to be true. I mean, wouldn’t it be disingenuous, empty words, to concede something if I don’t know it to be true? Accordingly, I don’t recommend you believe what you think I’m saying if I don’t know what you think I’m saying to be true. Dave also said, “I really can’t understand it”. Like I said, “what you make of it (if anything) is your affair”. That works for me. It might work for you too, but I don’t claim that it does. Where is the “arrogance” or “condescension” in that? I’m in awe of that mystery that is the truth. May you be as well, if you wish, and the peace that surpasses all understanding be with you.
I’m with you, Dave. I can’t figure out what Elsa or Marion are trying to say…
Sandor, you wrote, “So the prosecutor either dropped the ball, or did not have enough evidence, and as I said, preferred not to bring charges.” The prosecutor’s preferences and amount of evidence are neither here nor there when the law precludes him from carrying the ball any further than the investigation by virtue of the investigative finding that the statute of limitations had expired.
You wrote, “So the civil judicial system in effect exonerated Murphy.” If he had been convicted of a crime but the conviction was later overturned (e.g. by subsequent DNA evidence, witnesses admission of lying, etc.), or perhaps if he had been tried but the jury did not find him guilty, that would be exoneration. But if you want to stretch it to say that Fr. Murphy was exonerated, most people are going to think you’re saying he was found not guilty and cleared of all wrongdoing as if to say he was wrongly accused/convicted. But the judicial system did not accuse him or make any finding in terms of his guilt or innocence of a crime.
For the life of me, I can’t even figure out what Elsa is trying to say, so it’s hard for me to be offended by it.
As far as I can tell, she is saying that she doesn’t know anything, and we shouldn’t think we know anything either…but like I say, I really can’t understand it.
Elsa, you shared mostly your opinion today with a lot of condescension and arrogance. Don’t lecture me now and tell me you shared truth with me when you lacked any charity what so ever towards me and my opinion today, as well as towards many other people here on this blog today. Though there may have been some truth in the points you made, your opinions most certainly did not contain the fullness of truth. And your inability to recognize the truth in the points I made because it wasn’t your opinion is prideful. So why don’t you read what you just wrote, “I share the truth with you. What you make of it is your affair.” and take it to heart. At least I can concede certain points to you. You were incapable of reciprocating that to me today.
“Posted by Elsa on Wednesday, Apr 7, 2010 7:49 AM (EST):Sandor, you wrote, “the true scapegoat is the civil judicial system, that tried and exonerated Murphy on the easier to prove abuse case.” No, Fr. Murphy was never charged or tried or exonerated by the civil judicial system.”
To my knowledge, the prosecution is part of the system. So the prosecutor eithre dropped the ball, or did not have enough evidence, and as I said, preferred not to bring charges. So the civil judicial system in effect exonerated Murphy. Where is the outrage?
One of the frustrations expressed by everyone at the CDF meeting was that there were no records of what happened in 1974 in the Milwaukee diocesan archives. So nobody knows what happened then.
Jennifer, I share the truth with you. What you make of it is your affair.
James: I just saw your response. Thank you for your prayers and concern. I think what is needed most of all is for the stories of the survivors to be heard. The healing process will require a willingness to listen to the most uncomfortable things. Maybe we need a truth and reconciliation commission??? It would help. We survivors read all these distortions in the news media (and it’s the nature of the media to distort… correctives usually come later… ever see the movie “Absence of Malice”?) and get triggered. That’s why I had to check out of this conversation yesterday. I did have an encounter with Christ when I was a boy. And I loved the church from an early age. I have a complicated relationship with it these days, as I said before. But I keep in touch with it. Thanks again. -David
Elsa, did you enjoy yourself today? Did you have fun baiting us? It’s not nice to do what you did today.
Matthew, you wrote, “Jimmy noted this in his articles. Did you not read them?” What Jimmy wrote was that “Because the Wisconsin statute of limitations has expired, the deaf community cannot begin an action against Murphy in civil court.” He was thus speaking in terms of today. My comment, in quoting the 1974 district attorney who stated, “I don’t recall any of these [victim cases] being under the statute of limitations,” was in regard to 1974, that even then the statute of limitations had reportedly expired. So Jimmy did not say what I said.
You wrote, “You’re arguing that the CDF was at fault… You’re attacking the Pope,” Nooooo, I’m not. Of course, if you read my posts with a presumption of ill will, you may well find what you put into it.
You asked, “Better yet, what should have been done differently in this case?” How would I know? Your question presumes that I believe something should have been done differently. I make no such claim. I’m not convinced that we really even know what all was done in this case that goes back 50, 60 years or more. I’m not even convinced that we need to know. Maybe the Pope will speak on what “should have been done differently”. Or maybe not.
Matthew, good Synodus Horrenda reference there.
This whole combox has become a flame war between very judgmental people. The fact is, Jimmy has brought more depth to this than the whole NYT staff could (or would possibly want to) offer. Props to Jimmy.
Elsa points out: No civil authority has the power or ability to punish Fr. Murphy. First of all, because he’s dead. Second, the then district attorney stated, “I don’t recall any of these [victim cases] being under the statute of limitations.” The civil authority does not have the authority or ability to prosecute a person beyond the statute of limitations. The people of Wisconsin set the statute of limitations at six years.
I respond: Jimmy noted this in his articles. Did you not read them? Additionally, the Code of Canon Law also has statutes of limitations, which were waived in this case. Did you not read that as well? You’re arguing that the CDF was at fault, and therefore Pope Benedict, as he was Prefect of the CDF at the time, while ignoring all that was done.
Murphy is dead., having died before any sort of legal case would have been completed even if they had proceeded. The process of reporting and handling such cases has been much improved. What else do you think is needed? Should we dig up Murphy’s corpse and put it on trial, defrock a dead man? There’s historical precedent…
You’re attacking the Pope, but not stating what you’d like to see changed. Better yet, what should have been done differently in this case? Keep in mind that you have to stay within what is required by Canon Law, so just outright defrocking the priest without trial is out.
David, I’m sorry that you’re leaving this discussion. Again, I strongly agree with your view that the Church should halt efforts to canonize Pope John Paul II. Keep and spread the Faith.
I’ve had to check out of this discussion… it just has become too difficult to follow. I want, however, to thank those who have expressed compassion and support for me here. If the church and even the Pope must suffer to get this right, then so be it. We will be stronger in the end for clearing the air. And if, in the heat of passion, we say things that hurt or injure each other, I hope that we can find a way to heal that too. The hierarchy has a lot of explaining to do. So do many others. To Marion and others who feel like the church has been singled out here unfairly… maybe the Church is being called to lead the way forward. Think about it that way. If the Church takes up this challenge, it would be a powerful signal to the world of it’s inherent goodness and strength. Let the Church become an example to the world of how we should relate to each other.
Jennifer O, you asked, “whose shoulders do you place the greatest fault on?” Given that proper assessment of “greatest fault” requires knowledge of details that are not publicly available, I do not make such an assessment. You also asked, “Why do you appear to be giving a free pass to the civil authorities for their (statute of limitations) technicalities?” Again, the law does not consider it a “technicality” but rather an act of grace. Moreover, I’m not aware of any evidence that the priest sexually abused anyone after it was reported to the authorities, so I have little reason to believe that from that point onward that civil prosecution would have stopped him from any further sexual abuse. You also asked, “do you not agree that the government and civil authorities have greater power over their people than do institutions and individual people which must also obey those same government and civil authorities?” My answer is that such an assessment is circumstantial and subjective. As I’ve pointed out, I have little reason to believe that by the time someone notified civil authorities that civil prosecution would have stopped Fr. Murphy from any further sexual abuse. Therefore, the real power in terms of preventing sexual abuse was perhaps held in the hands of those who may have known about the abuse when it was still going on when prosecution may actually have prevented further abuse.
You say, “So let’s have a debate about whether or not a statute of limitation has served justice to the victims and the accused.” You can debate it all you want. It’s a matter of opinion.
You say, “The best [the CDF and ultimately B16] could have done anyway was to defrock Fr. Murphy. Again, that depends on when the CDF and B16 knew what they knew (which may be different than what’s been reported so far), and whether Fr. Murphy engaged in criminal acts in states where the statute of limitations might not yet have expired, and whether the CDF and B16 could have done or could do more than they have in regards to public disclosure of what really went on in this case and others like it that may still exist in the Church. Fr. Murphy and what “could have been done” is spilt milk. What’s still to be done and can be done is a real and living concern, and that includes what’s yet to be done in the current and future civil lawsuits, not only in regard to Fr. Murphy but also in regard to every other priest abuse case.
You wrote, “But once the guy is defrocked, then what? He’s still in public at large able to prey on other children.” Again, he remained at large and there is no report that I’m aware of that he subsequently preyed on any other children. And again, if the Church (and here I’m referring to the members of the Church) had better supervised Fr. Murphy to begin with so as to be aware of what he was doing or had she encouraged victims to speak up earlier, including before it was known that there were victims, or had she spoken up in all the jurisdictions where an offense may still have been prosecutable under the then-existing statute of limitations, maybe he would not have been at large.
You wrote, “I contend the statute of limitations that the state of WI observes and calls a grace caused an injustice to occur against the victims of this man and against the society as a whole by allowing this predator to live free in society.” That’s your opinion. It’s not Church teaching. Grace allows all of us who live free in society today to do so rather than be locked up or dead from our sins. And I suspect that Grace knows what’s best better than you do.
You wrote, “That statute being in place was the reason the state couldn’t investigate this and lock him up.” No, the state did investigate and the investigation concluded that the statute of limitations had expired, and at that point nothing short of a change in the U.S. Constitution could have resulted in his legal prosecution for those offenses. And there’s no evidence that his being locked up at that point would have prevented any further sexual abuse or done much of anything other than cost the taxpayers a lot of money for his confinement. Furthermore, it’s not been proven that had the statute of limitations not expired that there would have been a conviction, for the only proof of that is the trial itself and there was none.
So, tell me Elsa, whose shoulders do you place the greatest fault on? Why do you appear to be giving a free pass to the civil authorities for their (statute of limitations) technicalities? Are you also advocating for a free pass on the Church for their (limitations) technicalities? If not, that would be hypocritical. Also, as to my point about greater authority over people, do you not agree that the government and civil authorities have greater power over their people than do institutions and individual people which must also obey those same government and civil authorities? Who oversees the police, the IRS, the penitentiaries, our laws, our lands, and now our health care? Is not that the party with the greater authority and thus the greater responsibility? It is the denial of this that I find foolish. So let’s have a debate about whether or not a statute of limitation has served justice to the victims and the accused. That is where the real issue is, not in what the CDF and ultimately B16 did or didn’t do based on their “statute of limitations”. The best they could have done anyway was to defrock Fr. Murphy. And Abp. Weakland could have done that himself without the help of the CDF. But once the guy is defrocked, then what? He’s still in public at large able to prey on other children. I contend the statute of limitations that the state of WI observes and calls a grace caused an injustice to occur against the victims of this man and against the society as a whole by allowing this predator to live free in society. That statute being in place was the reason the state couldn’t investigate this and lock him up.
Jennifer O, the State of Wisconsin considers the statute of limitations to be an act of grace and not a “failure” or “technicality”. That you call it a “major fault and failing” is your personal opinion. It is not Church teaching. Church law also had a statute of limitations. And as I said, if Fr. Murphy committed an offense in another state where the statute of limitations had not expired, it’s been claimed that no one (including the Church and the victims and their families) brought it to those other states’ attention. As you said, “Fr. Murphy WAS ALIVE when they [the victims and the Church and others] were informed and had they done something” such as notify those other states, then maybe something could have been done in those other states. But reportedly, they [including the Church] did not. It would have been unconstitutional for Wisconsin to change its law to retroactively prosecute Fr. Murphy after the then-current statute of limitations had already expired. You speak of “foolishness”, and indeed, many will call any complaining over spilt milk to be foolishness. You also speak of “greater responsibility in this matter”, but as Fr. Murphy worked for the Church, many may say that none other than the Church had greater responsibility for supervising Fr. Murphy and that there was a serious failure in that regard. And as to the “greater power”, anyone, including those who may have turned a blind eye to the abuses, who could have reported the offense to the civil authorities in a timely manner had a great power, but reportedly chose not to do so.
Elsa, Thank you for further proving my point that the civil authorities failed, by having such a limitation and basically saying we can’t do anything because times up, our hands are tied. Legal technicalities don’t fly for those who are offended by the response of the CDF like David and they don’t fly for me who is offended by the lack of response by the civil authorities. Civil authorities were informed. They did nothing. That is their major fault and failing. Fr. Murphy WAS ALIVE when they were informed and had they done something, it would have been more than anything the Church could have done or has the authority to do. The civil authorities have the greater power. Try not paying your taxes (or now your health care coverage) and see what the government does then. And since the civil authorities have the greater power, they also have the greater responsibility in this matter. Enough said. Any more antics over this argument is just plain foolishness and not worth the combox it’s typed in.
If Fr. Murphy committed an offense in another state where the statute of limitations had not expired, it’s been claimed that no one (including the Church and the victims and their families) brought it to those other states’ attention.
Jennifer O, you wrote, “Civil authorities have the power and ability to punish Fr. Murphy unlike the Church.” No civil authority has the power or ability to punish Fr. Murphy. First of all, because he’s dead. Second, the then district attorney stated, “I don’t recall any of these [victim cases] being under the statute of limitations.” The civil authority does not have the authority or ability to prosecute a person beyond the statute of limitations. The people of Wisconsin set the statute of limitations at six years.
Jennifer O, You go, girl! Whoot!
(I’m back to work project on deadline)
Elsa, enough!
Sandor, I agree with you. Where is the outrage at the civil authorities? When I first found out that the case had gone through our civil authorities and they did nothing I really felt like they failed worse than the Church did. Civil authorities have the power and ability to punish Fr. Murphy unlike the Church. So the Church defrocks him. Big deal. Then what? Whereas the courts could put him away, make him pay restitution, and prevent him from committing this crime again. The Church doesn’t have that kind of authority, they could only keep him away from performing functions within their own walls. That leaves this man free to go into secular society and continue to abuse children. (Maybe he could have even gotten work as a teacher at the local high school. I’m sure the teachers union would’ve protected him.) My outrage I think is rightly so with the civil authorities who have a responsibility to keep us safe from these predators. Look at the recent killings in CA. And now CA is so broke they’re releasing these kinds of people on the public because they can’t pay to house them anymore. That’s more outrageous than the Fr. Murphy case. What was the level of the NYT’s outrage regarding this? When you look at how the civil authorities failed in the Fr. Murphy case, it really doesn’t even matter about the rest of the story regarding what happened within the CDF. The CDF has no civil authority or ability to protect the community at large, only those within its own walls and only while the people ARE within its own walls.
Sandor, you wrote, “the true scapegoat is the civil judicial system, that tried and exonerated Murphy on the easier to prove abuse case.” No, Fr. Murphy was never charged or tried or exonerated by the civil judicial system.
If the NYT wanted to find a scapegoat, at first it seems that Archbishop Weakland would be better than Card,. Ratzinger, for bringing the Murphy case to the “wrong court.”
But the true scapegoat is the civil judicial system, that tried and exonerated Murphy on the easier to prove abuse case.
After this, if the ecclesial courts tried to try him on the same charge, Murphy’s lawyers would screem “double jeopardy,” and the NYT in all likelyhood, would take Murphy’s side. So Weakland had to go to another court to try on a new charge, which was impossible to prove.
But with the NYT and others, determined to ruin the Church and embarass the pope, truth does not seem to matter.
According to Jimmy, “One can still criticize the way the CDF handled the case”, and Ratzinger was head of the CDF. Some may say Ratzinger wasn’t involved, and others may fault Ratzinger for not being involved or for not being more involved, or for foot dragging, or for “not encouraging”. When it comes to opinion, there will always be critical opinions.
Sandor, you wrote, “the NYT lied”. The Church teaches that lying requires not only the saying of what is false but also that the speaker has an intention to deceive. Even if the NYT article has some erroneous statements, you have not proven that the NYT had an intention to deceive.
Jennifer O, don’t believe what you think. That’s love.
Elsa, you’re behaving abusively. Go away and leave us alone.
Sandor, you wrote, “The point is, the Pope is innocent”. That’s one opinion. But when the man who is called Pope goes to confession, we don’t know what he confesses. We don’t even know all what he says and does outside of confession. So who is to say whether he’s innocent or not? If someone has not been proven guilty, does that mean he in fact is innocent? Or does it just mean he’s presumed innocent.
Elsa and Marion!
Please follow the warning of the Editor gthat was posted yesterday:
Posted by Thomas Wehner on Tuesday, Apr 6, 2010 1:05 PM (EST):Please try to confine your remarks to the subject matter and refrain from personal invective.
—The editors
Marion, you wrote, “He was so adamant she half-believe him, poor thing!” Poor thing indeed! Had she listened to me, I would have told her what I tell you: Don’t believe what you think!
You also wrote, “I have never encountered a first-hand experience quite like my friend’s… Now I do.” The only first-hand experience you’ll ever encounter is your own. And if you’re half-deluded like you alleged about your friend, poor thing, don’t believe what you think! And that includes what you think I’m telling you.
It works for me.
You girls never sleep?
“Posted by Marion (Mael Muire) on Wednesday, Apr 7, 2010 5:43 AM (EST):Elsa wrote, “You also wrote, ...”
This personal fight completely sidetracks the debate. Who cares what she said and you answered, ad nauseam.
The point is, the Pope is innocent, the NYT lied, and we have to stick together in defending the Pope and the Church.
Please stop this nonsense. You’d so better if you read and comment on the Pravda article (see above)
Elsa wrote, “You also wrote, ‘It would appear that: 1. you are filled with a dripping, loathing, toxic rage and hate toward the Catholic Church. That you don’t deny, do you, Elsa?’ I don’t bother to deny however it appears to you, just as I don’t bother to deny that a psychotic individual may see elephants dancing in his kitchen sink. After all, if that’s what you see, that’s what you see. There are medications available.”
“A psychotic individual” - Elsa, your words remind me so much of the experience of a friend of mine - her former boyfriend sneaked around with other women, took her credit cards, and gaslighted her about all this, and she confronted him; he angrily denied all, replied that she was crazy and needed to be in the hospital.
He was so adamant she half-believe him, poor thing! My friend actually saw her pastor for counseling. He fortunately was able to educate her about the behavior patterns of psychopathic individuals, who lie, cheat, obfuscate, deny, spin, reply “it depends on your definition of is” and so on, and then tell you that *you* are the one is crazy and imagining everything.
This, my friend’s pastor told her, is how psychopaths operate. The truth is not in them. They cannot say one single word of truth, be upfront, admit things, own up to things. Everything is spin, slip, deny, and double-talk. And, oh, by the way, “you are crazy” is what they fall back upon if at last they are cornered. Very typical.
Anyway, I have never encountered a first-hand experience quite like my friend’s, and didn’t quite have an “on the ground” understanding of what she was dealing with. Now I do. Your contributions here have brought us all up to speed. Thanks, Elsa. It’s been quite an education.
I think something important also is getting left out. Abp. Bertone not only took measures to curtail further crimes here and to pursue judicial action where he could. That’s one side of the coin of justice - the punitive reparation.
He also proposed a spiritual retreat and spiritual direction for Fr. Murphy. That’s the other side of justice - the “righting” or correcting of the perpetrator himself. His crimes affect him gravely, and can obviously lead to eternal condemnation without repentance. We can NEVER forget that.
“God desires not the death of the sinner, but that he repent.” That he receive his punishment, also, but not only.
cathyf as well had a good point (related to the same thing). Abp. Bertone did what was under his jurisdiction to do. Does that mean he was putting off justice? Most certainly not. But there were limits as to what HE could do.
Also, Abp. Weakland takes more responsibility, since he’s the first line of action for the crimes that happened, like a commander in the field of battle (cf. We Were Soldiers). Abp. Weakland admitted that, and Apb. Bertone most certainly confirmed that.
What Fr Murphy did was wrong, and no one’s questioning that. What the CDF could do it did, once the case was actually presented to them, and that’s also why Ratzinger asked JPII to move these cases to the CDF directly. That’s not reason to condemn the CDF, and that’s the point of this blog, if I read it right.
Sandor’s comments are actually quite correct. Obviously, Abp. Bertone knew this was a difficult case, not regarding the pedophilia part, but about the part that fell under the CDF’s jurisdiction at the time - regarding solicitation in the confessional (connected to, but not the essence of, the crime of Fr Murphy). Like in civil courts, the ecclesial tribunals have different jurisdictions that have to be respected. In the civil system, for example, you don’t take a capital homicide case to a familiy rights judge.
Now, Apb. Bertone wasn’t seeking Fr Murphy to fall into greater sin nor to draw out the case, but if Fr Murphy continued against the guidelines mentioned, the CDF could handle the subsequent case with more clarity. For these reasons, Cdl. Ratzinger moved pedophilia jurisdiction to the CDF directly to streamline things. Nevetheless, the bishop’s own responsibility was always the first thing.
I have no doubt, David, that the story you tell is true. My question is how can I help restore your faith, not just in the church, but also ignite the ember of Christ’s Love burning in your heart? Truly your cross glows with abundant grace.
I remember so clearly, as a lad of 12 years old, I was struck with the presence of Christ and I accepted his commitment to “lead me, guide me” and I in turn would do his will. Oh, so many times I’ve failed at my end of the bargain, but My Shepherd pulls me back; often against my will, kicking and screaming! But His Love sustains me.
David, I bet you had that encounter with Christ too. I cannot imagine the pain of having it brutally ripped from my heart, as a predator attempted to do to you. But he did not succeed because Christ’s commitment to you and your acceptance rings from your words.
This is the light of hope I see, that we as a faith community are responding. Isn’t that why we are all here? That through our diligence, and yes, by the actions of our leaders progress has been made and will continue to bear fruit, sometimes too very slow, but not without their pain, disgust, torment and remorse no different than what we feel. I guess we could graph the progress (and yes the lack thereof), we can exhume the dead, torture the evil doers, ponder over every move legalistically; but we must heal.
Didn’t Christ command that we go out, lay on hands and heal one another? This is my prayer for you David….Lord, fill David with Your Healing Spirit, make him an instrument of Your Love, wash away his pain with joy, allowing Your abundance to spill over to those he ministers to. Through Christ Our Lord, Amen!
Peace Brother,
James
Marion, you wrote, “You said that the children are fabricating.” No, I did not. I said “among those that do report their stories, there’s the additional question of whether what’s reported is the truth.” That’s not saying that “the children” are fabricating at all. Rather, it’s recognizing the fact (per Church teaching) that some amount of fabrication is a possibility, even by children, and the amount of fabrication is open to question, as is whether that amount is “significant”. I note you used the term “statistically significant”, and in statistics, a result is called “statistically significant” if it’s unlikely to have occurred by chance, even if it’s just a single instance. Other times you used the word “significant” without qualification, and certainly, even a single instance of fabrication can have significance to those involved.
You also wrote, “It would appear that: 1. you are filled with a dripping, loathing, toxic rage and hate toward the Catholic Church. That you don’t deny, do you, Elsa?” I don’t bother to deny however it appears to you, just as I don’t bother to deny that a psychotic individual may see elephants dancing in his kitchen sink. After all, if that’s what you see, that’s what you see. There are medications available.
You also wrote, “That although many more public school children than Catholic children are reporting abuse by adults in their environment, we should ignore that because you, Elsa, tell us to.” I did not tell you to ignore anything, nor did I tell you to believe what you think. Rather, I said, “Don’t believe what you think. It works for me.” And it still does. It might work for you too! Give it a try. It’s easy, just as Jesus said: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”
Marion, you need practice in reading comprehension.
I admit it - it’s not easy to comprehend the writings of anyone so full of hatred for victimized children and for the Catholic Church. The writings are so slippery, so full of back-tracking and obfuscation, so diabolical, so sulphurous. No, I get down on my knees and thank God that I am not accustomed to reading such writing for comprehension.
I consider my incomprehension of your writings or the writings of any enemy of the Church to be a badge of honor.
“I never claimed any number of children ‘fabricate their stories’. What I said is that there are children who do not even report their stories, and among those that do report their stories, there’s the addtional question of whether what’s reported is the truth.”
If what the children reported is not the truth, Elsa, then the children have made a fabrication. That’s what you said. You said that the children are fabricating. Look, don’t play games with me, Elsa. You can play hide and seek with your own words, but we all know exactly what you have been suggesting, and it is monstrous, monstrous beyond words.
If any Catholic dared to go on the Huff Post or MSM and suggest that significant numbers of victims of Catholic priest-predators were “fabricating”, that poster would be verbally annihilated.
As well they should be.
As well should any vicious wretch who suggests that statistically significant numbers of victims are fabricating regarding any institutions’s misdeeds.
“What percentage that may be is a question. I claimed no answer to it. Instead, you can fabricate whatever you want to it. As I said, I don’t believe what you think.”
You don’t claim much of an answer for anything here, do you, Elsa? What precisely is your point? It would appear that: 1. you are filled with a dripping, loathing, toxic rage and hate toward the Catholic Church. That you don’t deny, do you, Elsa? How hateful you are. 2. That although many more public school children than Catholic children are reporting abuse by adults in their environment, we should ignore that because you, Elsa, tell us to. Because in Elsa’s opinion, the public school children and their families who have been victimized are probably FABRICATING, but you can’t prove it.
What you write is so full of parsing and back-tracking, isn’t it, Elsa.
“Instead, you can fabricate whatever you want to it. As I said, I don’t believe what you think.”
Yes, Elsa, in your hatred for the Catholic Church, anyone or anything that suggests that your latest venomous weapons against her might lose some of their power must be accused of lying and fabricating: Children. Me.
You insult and disparage me all you want, Elsa, I know you can’t help it. To your heart’s content, if that makes you happy. But not the children, Elsa. Please, please, stop attacking the victims of public school predators.
I believe the children, Elsa. I believe them. I know you don’t. But I do. Please stop attacking children, Elsa.
I haven’t seen anybody mentioning that even the PRAVDA, the former Soviet daily, came to defend the Pope against the NYT et al.
see
http://english.pravda.ru/society/sex/112790-to_confuse_wood_with_trees-0
Marion, you might also ask yourself, are children who lie “innocent children”? Or are you speaking oxymoronically when you talk of innocent children lying. The Church teaches that “Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor.” Perhaps you’re using a different meaning of the word “lying”, as in simply making a false statement, whether innocently (as through ignorance or by accident) or otherwise.
Marion, you need practice in reading comprehension. I never claimed any number of children “fabricate their stories”. What I said is that there are children who do not even report their stories, and among those that do report their stories, there’s the addtional question of whether what’s reported is the truth. What percentage that may be is a question. I claimed no answer to it. Insead, you can fabricate whatever you want to it. As I said, I don’t believe what you think.
“There are NO studies done comparing the likelihood of victims of Catholic priests to report the abuse vs the likelihood of victims of public school teachers to report. You talk about lying, but that’s yet another question on top of reporting, for indeed, what’s reported is not always the truth.”
Face it, Elsa, rather than to admit the truth about what goes on in circles other than Catholic ones, you had the freaking gall to come on here and suggest that significant numbers of innocent children who have been victimized by adult-on-child sexual predators within the public school system have been FABRICATING their stories and that their stories and those of their families are not worthy of credit.
Well, what do you do for an encore, Elsa? Rotate your head around 180 degrees while spewing green vomit?
Wouldn’t surprise me coming from anyone who accuses innocent children of lying in droves about their victimzation.
Thanks, Sandor Balogh, for your excellent and insightful information. Very helpful.
Of course, Sandor, what you have written will be of no interest to those who hate the Catholic Church with such an unnatural and diabolical hatred that they would stoop to accusing innocent children of LYING rather than to see the Church or any member of its hierarchy exonerated of even some suspicion.
Thanks again, Sandor.
Marion, what’s “reported every year” are the number of reported cases. What’s not reported are the number of unreported cases. And as I said earlier, the likelihood of reporting varies by circumstance. There are NO studies done comparing the likelihood of victims of Catholic priests to report the abuse vs the likelihood of victims of public school teachers to report. You talk about lying, but that’s yet another question on top of reporting, for indeed, what’s reported is not always the truth. Your own posts demonstrate that. Don’t believe what you think. It works for me. It might work for you.
I’ve read the first and last few dozen comments, and nobody compared the CDF procedure to the procedure in a ciivil prosecutor’s office.
When a civil prosecutor has a case too difficult to prove, he looks for a plea bargain, or at worse, he drops the case, without prosecution. He has a great deal of discretion.
Here, informal but potent penalties were mandated on the Ordinary, and they had set the stage for a new procedure, where there are no loopholes, and he can be de-frocked, if he violates the new rules, and continues his contact with the abused community. So, if one reads Jimmy’s report carefully, must come to the coclusion, that they did an excellent job, even compared to a civil prosecutor.
“Marion, don’t lie and claim I said “all statistics are useless”.”
You accuse everyone around you of lying, don’t you, Elsa? First, innocent public school children victims of sexual predators. Then me.
Disgusting. As are all persons who wish to portray the Catholic Church in the worst possible light. Foul, disgusting, loathsome liars.
Elsa wrote, “nor is anyone required to accept anyone’s child sexual abuse figures as accurate, because in fact there is NO PROOF that any are accurate.”
They are reported, Elsa, every year, by the scores in every state. Families and children all victims of brutal rapes and other attacks in the public schools come forward to report. But, Elsa, you want us to believe that most of those children are lying, aren’t they?
Poor kids. First victimized by vicious predators in the public school. Then by vicious enemies of the Catholic Church who, in order to keep the spotlight on the Catholic Church scandal numbers as high as possible, claim that these other innocent children are liars - LIARS!
No, Elsa, I don’t call them liars. I believe the Catholic victims. I believe them. I believe the public school victims. I am not a vicious spiteful individual willing to say or do anything to put either the public schools system or the Catholic Church in the worst possible light, by calling innocent children liars.
I believe the children, Elsa. I believe the children.
It’s you I don’t believe.
Would all decent and responsible people of good will tell Elsa here, “we believe children!”
Marion, don’t lie and claim I said “all statistics are useless”. Even a dirty dish rag has a use, as do lies and your posts.
Marion, the U.S. Justice Department does not claim to have accurate statistics on the prevalence of child sexual abuse in schools and in the Church, nor is anyone required to accept anyone’s child sexual abuse figures as accurate, because in fact there is NO PROOF that any are accurate. The truth is in your face and you just don’t see it.
Where does anyone like Elsa get off coming on here and proclaiming first that “all statistics are useless”, and then when shot down on that gambit, claiming that the statistics of the U.S. Justice Department are “methodologically flawed”?
God! Get normal, will ya?
Elsa, now that you’re not talking about bikinis anymore, maybe you can understand that information that comes from law enforcement sources such as the U.S. Justice Department, not from peer reviewed social sciences journal articles, is very reliable.
Otherwise, it’s a question of I get in your face; you get in my face, and we scream at each other.
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather rely on statistics. Even bikini statistics, Elsa.
Child abuse is child abuse. I’m sorry to know you don’t understand that. And I’m sorry to learn that you aren’t interested in or care about the welfare of children. All children.
Even more pathetic.
Marion, there is NO peer reviewed study comparing the rate of child abuse in the public school system to that in the Catholic Church. Rather, it’s people like yourself attempting ad hoc apples and oranges comparisons using flawed numbers and half-baked assumptions. There is NO objective method to determine the prevalence of abuse, whether it’s in the public schools or in the Church. There are no hidden cameras, no secret microphones, no truth serum, no lie detector tests applied to general populations, etc. Any reporting is generally all voluntary, and whether someone volunteers or keeps it secret depends on many factors which vary by circumstance, not the least is whether the abuser is a public school teacher rather than “a man of God”. Your comparison is not “dead on”. Rather, it’s dead drunk.
Elsa wrote, “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Yes, very clever, we have all read Mark Twain.
“Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. Do not put your trust in what statistics say until you understand what they do not say. In regard to the “light” of your statistics, a drunken man uses a lamppost for support rather than illumination.”
You know what?
You know what all this drivel you wrote, Elsa, means? It means you can’t answer the actual facts and figures, can you? The actual facts and figures are staring you in the face, and they’re against you, arent’ they? They prove you wrong, don’t they? So you type out “blah-blah-blah” meaningless drivel to distract from the fact that your words have not a leg to stand on and you’re also trying to bat the legs out from under good Catholic people.
Nice try, Elsa. Won’t work.
Try it on someone stupider.
“The Church is not the public school system.”
Really, Elsa? And you know what else? And morons aren’t geniuses and nincompoops aren’t sages, and dolts aren’t judges.
Nice game.
“Your comparison by way of flawed statistics is flawed.”
No it’s not. It’s dead on. It nails it. And you don’t like that. And you think with just a wave of the hand you can wish it away. How pathetic!
P.S. to clarify my above question: the “baby boys snivelling and caterwauling” phraseology was was NOT addressed to any victims. The victims who survived are my heroes. The sniveling babies I refer to are the overgrown male infants who have not suffered directly at the hands of the perps, and who daring to pretend they know anything at all about these deep matters, unjustly attack the Church and the Holy Father, or at best, reveal by their words and actions that they are content to stand by and watch them unjustly attacked.
Marion, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. Do not put your trust in what statistics say until you understand what they do not say. In regard to the “light” of your statistics, a drunken man uses a lamppost for support rather than illumination.
The Church is not the public school system. Your comparison by way of flawed statistics is flawed.
I still haven’t had one attempt at an answer to my earlier question: In light of the statistics whereby children are more at risk of sexual predation in the public schools than in any Catholic circles nowadays, why is the major news media continued its on the steady drumbeat of predation within the Catholic Church - Catholic Church - Catholic Church?
Can any of you baby boys stop your sniveling and caterwauling long enough to answer that simple question?
Or is that too hard?
Awwwwwwww.
cathyf: Facts? Knowledge? Actual information about how the realistic options available to the Holy Father? Actual awareness of the hard realities of how judicial proceedings operate?
You dare to introduce these matterss when the Great God The New York Times (We all bow down before Its Holy Name) has pronounced sentence on the Pope? A sentence he undoubtedly deserves, since the God NYT is all-knowing, all-wise, and all-just.
You dare to introduce these when that God’s servant O’Brien has finished his peanut butter and jelly and taken time to enlighten us with his scathing remarks about the Pope?
How dare you? How dare you?
Confidential to Joe d’Hippolito: What I have written I have written tongue-in-cheek. That phrase is in the dictionary. Under “t”. Look it up before you reply.
I believe that Cardinal Ratzinger should have insisted on an immediate canonical trial of Father Murphy.
The only really possible outcome from such an order is that Murphy would have been acquitted in any CDF trial which was not a kangaroo-court farce. Unless he died first (and he would have.) Because in the only matter over which the CDF had jurisdiction (the question of solicitation in the Confessional) it was going to be impossible to meet any burden of proof without a confession from Murphy.
Reading the minutes of the meeting, it sure looks to me like Bertone is suggesting ways to entrap Murphy. They know that they would lose a trial based upon the decades-old crimes, so they are setting him up. That’s why Bertone is suggesting a list of restrictions, in writing. If Murphy is arrogant and clueless and considers himself the victim as the Wisconsin locals are claiming, then he is surely going to violate one of those restrictions, and then, like sending Al Capone to jail on tax charges, they will have a contemporaneous open-and-shut case to defrock him with.
Such a plan has a certain logic to it. If the Wisconsin locals were wrong, and Murphy had in fact fully repented, then he wouldn’t take the bait and would live out his days in penitent seclusion. If Murphy was telling the truth about his health, then he was going to face God’s judgment soon, and nothing the CDF or anyone else in the Church could do (other than Murphy himself) was going to have the slightest effect one way or another.
Answer one question. We all know the statistics.
Why is the news media fixated on the Catholic Church when it comes to the horrific abuse of children?
And this time I want an answer that doesn’t contain any horsesh*t.
“Physicians who fail to treat a treatable cancer of which they are aware, or of which they ought to be aware, cannot defend their inaction by saying that previous doctors negligently failed to deal with the tumor.”
Oh! And you were there, Stephen O’Brien and you know *all* about it! How do you know the cancer is “treatable”? Have you been privy to all the conversations and arrangements made throughout this entire episode? Do you have a solid understanding of how these decisions have customarily been made at the highest levels of the Church? No, no, no, and no! you don’t know, you have no idea, you have no clue, and you don’t have the slightest inkling what you are talking about.
Sure, Stephen, you don’t like how it went down. None of us likes it. We all loathe adult-on-child sexual predators, whether they are functioning as Roman Catholic priests, Protestant, Orthodox, or Jewish clergy, public school teachers, or members of other organizations. Those guys deserve to be in prison, every last one of them.
But you know what? In the real world, it doesn’t always work out the way we all agree it should, and you know what else? Sometimes good people who, in hindsight, would have been better advised to handle an unfolding disaster differently, allow trusted subordinates to deal with these matters.
When was the last time, Stephen O’Brien, that you were in the position of relying on the word or actions of trusted subordinates stationed overseas?
I thought not.
It’s easy to play armchair quarterback against a good man who has to - you know - *actually* carry the weight of the Church on his shoulders.
And, no, for the 150th time, I *don’t* defend or excuse adult-on-child sexual predators who dress up in Roman collars or public school teacher clothes and destroy children’s lives. I don’t defend or excuse spineless pastors and bishops, who instead of doing what the Medieval Church did - defrock ‘em and lock ‘em away in a cloistered monastery somewhere to do penance for the rest of their lives - instead, listened to and bought into the recommendations of modern, so-called enlightened mental health experts who opined that these slimeballs could be “cured” and made suitable for church service again. Which they couldn’t be. And the bishops should have known they couldn’t be, had they remained true to the Church’s tradition. Anyway, I don’t make excuses for the perps, and I don’t make excuses for the actions of their fully cognizant superiors charged with protecting children.
The actual perpetrators, and those down on the ground who were demonstrably fully cognizant of the full implications of the perps’ actions don’t deserve Church positions, don’t deserve to the name “men”, and don’t particularly deserve to live, in my opinion.
But on the actions of people who weren’t there (like you, Stephen O’Brien), weren’t on the ground like the Pope, who heard allegations third-, fourth-, or fifth-hand, who reasonably trusted those who were on the ground to do the right thing, (which you would probably do, too, Stephen, if you had any actual responsibility of anything more than your own laundry and making your own PB&J for lunch every day) - on them you and I have zero basis and zero standing to pronounce any judgment. Reservations, yes, concerns, yes. Judgements, no.
To pretend to judge such a case, is I believe, besides being an act of the sheerest folly, is nothing less than to play into the hands of the Church’s enemies. Which would be a tragic mistake for all concerned.
Despite Jimmy Akin’s good intentions, I do not feel that his article comes to grips with the entirely reasonable—and quite serious—questions raised by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s leadership of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) during the period when Father Lawrence C. Murphy’s case was referred to it. It is essential to have an accurate translation of a critical document, but the translation issues that Mr. Akin notes do not at all affect the bottom line: Cardinal Ratzinger was the CDF prefect at that time. Whatever the CDF did, or failed to do, during the cardinal’s tenure was his responsibility.
I believe that Cardinal Ratzinger should have insisted on an immediate canonical trial of Father Murphy. That the bishops and the police in Wisconsin had not taken adequate action in Father Murphy’s case is irrelevant: the matter was now before the cardinal. Physicians who fail to treat a treatable cancer of which they are aware, or of which they ought to be aware, cannot defend their inaction by saying that previous doctors negligently failed to deal with the tumor.
Invoking the privilege that the Church grants to laypersons in both canon law and the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* (section 907), I suggest that canon law is in urgent need of the following revision: regardless of the number of years that have elapsed, any priest or bishop who has sinned with one or more minors, if he admits his guilt or is proved to be guilty in a Church or civil court, must be laicized immediately. I believe that this policy is demanded by the horrific scandal of sexual sins committed against children, and by the common good of the Church and society. We should keep in mind the words of Christ in *Mt* 18:6-7, and the Church’s teaching on scandal in the new catechism (sections 2284-2287).
In addition, I strongly agree with David’s view that efforts to beatify Pope John Paul II should be halted.
Keep and spread the Faith.
Joseph D’Hippolito said:
“Marion, your sarcasm about SS. Peter and Paul, and Christ, does not hide the fact that they would have been far harder on those in religious authority than you appear to be.”
Would they have been “harder on those in religious authority”? Wasn’t it Christ who said to “turn the other cheek” and when asked by Peter if he should forgive his brother seven times replied, that we must “forgive seventy times seven”?
It is indeed a travesty that some priests have abused the authority granted them and harmed children such as David who posts above. It is also a travesty that venues such as the New York Times so abuse their authority by writing inaccurate stories.
Thank you Jimmy and Lori for shedding some light on this story.
I don’t object to persons criticizing the Church.
I object to persons who state that they don’t care what anyone thinks criticizing the Church, as you stated you don’t care earlier, Joseph. Someone who says they don’t care what anyone thinks has given in to despair, can no longer think straight, and has no business criticizing the Church or anyone or anything else for that matter.
They’re a loose cannon. You can have a perfectly good piece of ordnance, perfectly good ammunition, a good aiming mechanism, a fine firing system, but if she’s untethered and rolling hither and yon all over the deck, then my friend, we have a problem.
You’re not thinking straight about this, Joseph, and haven’t been thinking straight for quite some time. This is what despair has done to you.
I realize that now. I will leave you in peace now. Probably should have done earlier, only I didn’t realize.
Good-bye.
“Marion, what do you think St. Peter would have thought, written and said about the sexual abuse of children by priests, and the resultant episcopal enabling?”
Joseph, I would not think that St. Peter would LIKE the abuse of children.
Joseph, I would think that St. Peter would say this was a BAD thing that they should not do.
I think those bad men should be punished. Do you know what “punished” means. It’s a bad thing happening to people who do bad things so they will know how it feels.
Yes. Bad.
“What do you think St. Paul would have thought, written or said? What do you think Christ Himself would have thought and said?”
That it is bad.
“Think about that one, Marion. Think about that one very seriously before you answer.”
I did think very seriously about it, Joseph. Can you share with everyone here the words “bad” and “punishment” mean? I’m not sure you get that. But if you look them up in the dictionary, Joseph, you will see what “bad” and “punishment” actually mean.
Tell us, Joseph, when you’re done looking them up and understand them.
My bad! Last line - last comment.
“attempt to strangle (not strange) the Roman Catholic Church.”
Something that Jimmy has said pretty clearly needs to be emphasized even more: going to the CDF was an attempt to “end run” normal Church procedures. A good analogy would be sending Al Capone to jail on tax evasion. We like to congratulate ourselves (as Americans) for our cleverness on that one, but it’s good to remind ourselves that the Capone ploy only worked because the government actually had an actual case with actual solid evidence of tax evasion. Bertone’s warning was completely appropriate: CDF didn’t have jurisdiction over the whole of Murphy’s crimes, and what they did have jurisdiction over was the stuff that was going to be hardest to prosecute. If Murphy wasn’t lying about his health (and it turned out he wasn’t) there was a good chance that he would be dead long before the church could follow through and defrock him.
Americans are the most litigious people in the world. We are all about the rights of defendants, and we watch guilty people get away with things all of the time. We’ve got OJ Simpson, who slit the throats of 2 people and almost decapitated them, and he’s playing golf, and the father in good standing of the children whose mother he butchered. Or, as Bill Ayers, terrorist, bragged, “guilty as sin and free as a bird.” This is how it is when you have an actual functioning legal system which protects the rights of the accused and presumes them innocent, even though they are usually guilty. We have this social compact in America which says that it is better to let guilty people go free than to trample the rights of the innocent. And, sure enough, guilty people go free. Reading the documents that we have, it looks to me like Bertone, Weakland, etc. were way less respectful of Murphy’s rights and way more cognizant of the victims than any US government court would have been.
“the people who are siding with the enemy are the predators and their episcopal protectors.”
And the people who side with the enemy in other ways, too, are also siding with the enemy. There are many ways to side with the enemy.
“Who do you think started this whole mess in the first place? And how long do you think it’s been going on?” Adam and Eve. The whole of human existence.
“St. Alphonsus Liguori recommended that priests engaged in sexual abuse be castrated! With whom do you think he was siding?” I’m not in a position of authority to say what specifically is the right thing to doin the case of predators of any stripe - Catholic, Protestant, non- Christian, public school, etc. I do think they should be neutralized, as they say, with extreme prejudice. That’s up to the Church and the civil courts to figure out. Inmates in prison have their own way of dealing with “short eyes” fellow inmates. Those kind of guys need to be separated from the rest of the population, or else they’ll end by talking with very, very high-pitched voice. Can’t say I’d lose a whole heck of a lot of sleep over that. But then I’m a little short on charity when it comes to adult-on-child sexual predators who harm children.
Any adult-on-child sexual predators.
Not just the ones in clerical collars.
“Let me ask you Marion: Would you have prefered to have the Boston Globe not report on these atrocities when they broke the story in 2002? If not, why not?”
Of course, the stories should have broken. If it hadn’t broken, and if I knew about one of them, say, if it had been my kid, I would have been slipping Kinko’s copies with the news under windshield wipers in the church parking lots.
And kids hamed by predators under any and all auspices deserve justice and protection, as well.
What the news media shouldn’t be doing is selectively reporting on the stories within the Catholic hierarchy and downplaying or ignoring reports of these same kinds of problems within the many other organizations and institutions plagued by this same problem, and where children deserve justice and protection, too.
Children today in Catholic Church environments are probably safer and better off than they are in any other institutional environment. But will the Boston Globe or the NYT print that? God forbid! That would not be in keeping of their agenda to, as George Weigle so aptly put it, “attempt to strange the Roman Catholic Church both morally and financially.”
The man who thinks he “has the guts not to care what anybody else thinks” is often the man who has forgotten that there is a God in Heaven to whom he, like the rest of us, is answerable. And before whose Judgment Seat he, like the rest of us, must go and stand and give an account of every word he has spoken.
The man who pretends to himself that he “has the guts to not care what anyone thinks,” who loses his head and shoots off his big mouth becomes the tool and the plaything of the Evil One.
I tremble for such a man. How, in the end, if he ends by roasting in the pits of the Evil One, is he any better off than the very slimeballs he denounces, who roast with him?
What a joke! What a pitiful joke, over which Satan must roar with laughter. Imagine! To burn the paedophile slimeball, and to burn the denouncer of slimeballs together - what a pairing! What a concoction! How delicious, how exotic, Satan will think. That is how men “who have the guts not to care what anyone thinks,” and who has at last fallen into sins of rash judgment, of assenting to false accusations of others, of perpetuating and transmitting the scandal given by others, and of failing to defend His mother the Holy Church, end up.
And, what’s more, to pretend to have special knowledge, and special information about who is precisely the guilty party in each particular case, what they knew, and when they knew it, or to imply that one has such special knowledge, and to prescribe what men far above oneself in authority ought to do and ought not to do over each individual case is arrogant . . . arrogant of an order of arrogance belonging to the Fiend himself.
It is one thing to speak in generalities about that of which one does not know the details or about which one has not been placed by God in a position to speak expertly - men may reasonably debate and discuss matters up to a certain point - but to act as judge, jury, and executioner of the Pope and of God’s own holy Church - to side with the enemy, in fact, is despicable beyond words.
“The corrupt clergy because the corrupt clergy are the ones dragging God’s name and His people through the sewer!”
Correction. The enemies of the Church in the news media and elsewhere would drag God’s name and His people through the sewer by any means they can come up - truth or lies. The corrupt clergy within the Church have simply made our enemies’ job easier for them, all that much the worse for them and for us.
God help those of us who get splashed with this mud from the gutter. I have relatives who have gone so far as to stop receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist even from a sound and holy priest, because their hearts have been so splattered by this mud.
To express oneself in such a manner as to appear to take the side of the Church’s enemies, to repeat their lies, is despicable, no matter who does it.
Please try to confine your remarks to the subject matter and refrain from personal invective.
—The editors
“Thank you for your clarification, Marion.”
You’re welcome, David, and God bless you.
“No, I don’t feel any happiness about this… it makes me sick, and it ruined my Easter.”
It was without a doubt *intended* to ruin your Easter, and the Easter of all Catholics, if possible, and of as many Christians as possible. The enemies of the Church in the news media and elsewhere are delighted with this bad news and eagerly publish it at the best (for them) (worst, for us) possible time to do the most possible damage to the Catholic Church.
It was intended, David, to ruin your Easter.
If the Church’s enemies in the news media and elsewhere could get it circulated abroad that the Catholic Church introduces enriched Plutonium into the Communion wine to control our minds, or something crazy like that - they would without a doubt put that abroad.
But they don’t have to make up bad stuff about the Church like that. The truth is worse: Clerical predators and episcopal enablers have handed the real deal to them.
On a silver platter, no less.
So, yes, David, it was intended to ruin your Easter, and all of our Easters. I’m so sorry.
Nevertheless, He is risen. He is risen, indeed. Alleluia.
“I am no enemy of the Church, but my relationship to it is (to put it mildly)‘complicated.’”
Just for being here and even trying to make something of your life and being a good person. You are my hero, my dear. Whatever you do, wherever you go, I wish you the best. God be with you.
First of all for David, I’m praying for you. What you suffered is not something that just goes away.
Also for the blog, thanks for clarifying the points on the jursdiction of the case. First, that it wasn’t handled on time by the bishop himself (as Weakland himself admitted).
2nd, that pedophilia itself wasn’t CDF material at that time (i.e., the responsibility fell under someone else concretely, really, just not Ratzinger at the Times tries to implicate).
3rd, that the local DA didn’t take care of it when he could have.
David, can I ask, what exactly do you want the Pope to do that he or anyone else has not already started to do? I noticed you mentioned an apology to all the victims in an earlier post, but I thought B16 did that along with meeting with several victims when he came here back in 2008? Am I wrong? Or do you feel that this was insufficient or insincere? And what would seem to you to be sufficient and sincere? Is there something else you feel should be done that is not already been tried? Do you even think it is possible for the Church/Pope to make proper restitution to you? I ask this with all sincerity and honesty because I really would like to hear your opinion. Thank you.
Also, can anyone else tell me, maybe Mr. Greydanus, I’ve always heard it said that each Bishop is like a pope for his area and that the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) though the vicar of Christ is not like a CEO of the Church, but rather a servant of the servants. So therefore his authority over them is very limited. Do I understand this correctly, or what am I missing? It’s so hard to get out of the mindset that the Pope is the CEO, the Bishops and Cardinals are executive management, and the priests and religious are middle and lower management. It seems to me that this is where much of the confusion and misconceptions come from as far as liability and limitations are concerned. Can anyone help me to understand this? Thanks.
How many people could have easily translated it…
This refers to the CDF memo in Italian. Sorry about that.
One more thing on the Italian…for something that demands accuracy like journalism, why would they trust MS Word translator, or whatever they used? With all due respect, that’s common sense, if you ask me. Ask someone who knows Italian, and voila! NEW YORK Times…I think there are a few Italians in the neighborhood, no?
My sincerest condolence for you, David, on what happened. No one who suffers violence has it easy– the scars are much deeper than physical! Also, thank you for making an effort to clarify your position.
Now, concerning Jimmy’s blog at the top, I think he made something very clear: the Times misreported gravely. How many people could have easily translated it then and there, if the Times wanted the facts? I doubt the Times was strapped for cash. Bad reporting that damages someone’s name is unethical. Dan Rather resigned after he did that to Bush a few years ago, remember?
The priest who perpetrated those actions in the deaf community isn’t justified by the Times’ error, but the Times is far less so on its own account.
That that wasn’t addressed sooner is probably JPII’s fault. He seems to have been in denial. Or something. Maybe someday we’ll know.
Perhaps it had something to do with JPII spending most of his life under a totalitarian government which could, and did, trump up these sorts of accusations out of whole cloth in order to destroy the innocent?
Dave, great post, but a slight correction. Before 2001, cases of sexual abuse by priests were indeed handled by the Vatican. But they were handled, as you might imagine, by the Congregation for the Clergy. The CDF took them over in 2001; I believe that this was at Ratzinger’s request, because he wanted them to be handled better than they had been.
David, God bless you and I hope you find true healing.
I see Lori’s question addressed to J.R. and Joseph, and I see what J.R. said, I don’t see Joseph’s post. I wonder if someone “upstairs” deleted it. Thank you for your clarification, Marion. No, I don’t feel any happiness about this… it makes me sick, and it ruined my Easter… I am no enemy of the Church, but my relationship to it is (to put it mildly) “complicated.”
David,
No one here would dispute the fact that the Church has made grave mistakes, and members of the Church have committed grave sins, in dealing with abusive priests. The problem is that the media thrust now is all about trying to implicate the Vatican, probably because of the pending lawsuit by “victim advocate” lawyer Jeffrey Anderson against the Vatican.
The problem, specifically, is that the accusations against the Vatican are not supported by the facts, which you would know if you were able to take the time to read Jimmy’s articles in a careful and dispassionate manner. Even less so are the accusations against Pope Benedict XVI supportable.
No, the overwhelming brunt of the blame in the Fr. Murphy case, as well as 99.9% of all the cases where abusive priests were shuffled around, has to be laid at the door of the local diocese. The local bishops have the responsibility and the authority to deal with their own abusive priests.
The only reason this particular case made it to the Vatican AT ALL was because of the accusation of using Confession as a means to commit his crimes, and it is grasping at straws to try to place any significant blame on the Vatican for what happened in this case. The vast majority of cases were dealt with (or not dealt with) in the local dioceses, and that is where the blame has to rest.
Since 2001, the Vatican has taken responsibility for all sex abuse cases, so they can legitimately be judged for the way they have processed the cases since then, but that does not seem to be the media thrust.
David, reread the thread, and read Lori’s question that I was quoting and to whom she was addressing herself.
You ask me: is your anger about attacks on the powerful leaders of the church misplaced and aimed at the weak and defenseless?
No.
My anger about some - not all - attacks on the powerful leaders of the Church is aimed at enemies of the Church, many of whom I believe kick up their heels and cry “Yippee!” every time word of another victim like yourself - victims of sexual predators within the Catholic clergy - comes to light.
Just to be clear: I don’t believe you kick up your heels and cry “Yippee!” every time word of another victim comes to light, David. I don’t believe any victims or their families do that. I believe victims and their families are just that - victims who are grieving having had their lives destroyed.
Apart from that . . . apart from harboring sexual predators in their midst, and apart from covering for them and protecting them, the Catholic Church has had and still has implacable enemies who hate her so much that they would actually exult and rejoice over news of any wrong-doing on her part, anything that would discredit her, anything that would strangle her influence for good in the world.
Are you one of them, David? No! I didn’t think so. Therefore, my anger is not aimed at you. No one’s anger should be directed at anyone who hasn’t done anything wrong.
My anger is aimed instead at those who have done wrong, those who are enemies of the Church. Since you are not an enemy of the Church - and I don’t say or think you are - then my anger is not aimed at you.
I see no posting above from Joseph d’Hippolito. What did he say? I’m sorry if I mistook your words. Now please explain how I have put “everyone on the planet” in my “cross-hairs”... because I don’t see how I’ve done anything like that. Marion, would you not try to comprehend the pain of others? Is your anger about attacks on the powerful leaders of the church misplaced and aimed at the weak and defenseless? We have very little power, while the church has vast funds and pays expensive law firms to defame us every time we try to hold the church accountable for it’s wrongs. We are the ones who are consistently defamed. We didn’t ask for this. It happened to us.
David - did I say that my comments were addressed to you? Well, they weren’t. They were addressed to Joseph d’Hippolito.
But who cares about that? You were once victimized, so that gives you the right to put everyone on the planet in your cross-hairs? Is that it?
Kill them all. Let God sort them out.
Lovely.
Jennifer and Lori: Thank you for your thoughts and willingness to hear, rather than just react defensively. The Church hierarchy has been complicit in a profound sin, and it must repent and deal with this forthrightly, instead of with claims of defamation. Forgiveness… I realize it’s part of letting go… I’m angry at people who seem ready (far too quickly) to assume this is a smear campaign or the liberal media. This needs to be exposed so that it can be dealt with. If it isn’t, then the problem will just recur over and over again, as it did when it was all hidden. It’s good to know that not all of my brothers and sisters are filled with resentment about this, but are willing to listen to the stories and take them seriously. -David
Marion: You are very strange to think this is about me being “special”... unfortunately I’m not special as there are tens of thousands of us out there. And we’re not going to remain silent anymore. And claiming that our speaking up is anti-Catholic is just nonsense. -David
David, just wanted to give you a combox hug :) if that’s possible. I’m not as smart as many of these people here, but I know the truth when I hear it, and the truth matters more than anything else. I think that is what Steven, Lori and Jimmy are trying to communicate and bring out. I can relate to your pain, suffering and lifelong debilitating consequences that you now suffer because of a betrayal of trust by those adults with authority over you whom you relied on. Though not abused the same way you were, I too have had my own life changing experiences from childhood that have negatively affected every aspect of my adult life just like you (I assume). I just wanted to share with you something that helped me. Not to give unsolicited advice because I don’t know where you’re at with this, but I wanted to reach out to you somehow, if at least just to say you’re not alone, I’m here too. What I learned (and still struggle to internalize) is that there is nothing they can do, say, or pay now that will ever undo or change the past to make up for what they did wrong. And in conjunction with that is, forgiving them has more to do with healing myself, putting the blame squarely on their shoulders, and letting go of the past so I can move on and live a better life in the present, then it does with excusing them of any wrong doing. I think this stuff resurfacing in the papers and the news is ripping your wounds open and making you have to think about it and it’s painful. I’m sorry. I hope knowing there are people in communion with you, is some consolation to you. Peace of Christ be with you.
It is possible to loathe and deplore all abuse of children that has taken place within the Church, to loathe and deplore the cover-ups and other malfeasance by senior members of the hierarchy, to grieve over and to support the victims, to support and defend the innocent priests members of the hierarchy, to promote the Church’s reputation for the good she has done, and at the same time to loathe and deplore the actions of those who would use these scandals for their own ends - such as an agenda to harm the reputation of the Church.
The vast majority of normal Catholics feel this way. It’s not that hard.
Unless I react to news of further scandals with a desire to make this news all about how special and perfect I am. Which isn’t normal.
“If someone is innocent, should we throw him to the wolves just because he’s a member of the hierarchy?”
Yes. Because this proves how perfect and special I am.
“Or do you really believe no one there is innocent?”
Yes. Because this also proves how perfect and special I am.
“Do you just hate them for their jobs, and don’t care if they are guilty or not?”
Yes. Because this also proves how perfect and special I am
“Do you recognize that this is prejudice on your part?”
No, because I am perfect and special. Aren’t I special. And you’re horrible! Horrible, Lori, for even suggesting otherwise. So there!
@ David, You said you were mad about the Good Friday Stations and how insensitive the writer was. Well, here is his apology:
“In response to the criticism Father Cantalamessa said: “If, against any intention of mine, I offended the sensibility of Jews and the victims of pedophilia, I sincerely regret it and ask forgiveness, reaffirming my solidarity with both.””
Sorry about what happened to you. I´ll pray for you every day
You can get the whole article at: http://www.zenit.org/article-28855?l=english
J. R. and Joseph, just answer me this,
If someone is innocent, should we throw him to the wolves just because he’s a member of the hierarchy? Or do you really believe no one there is innocent? Do you just hate them for their jobs, and don’t care if they are guilty or not? Do you recognize that this is prejudice on your part?
And you probably didn’t read Jimmy’s article either!
JR You didn’t read the article did you?
You may find this interesting:
“Note that the idea of keeping the case secret is not on the table. The matter is public, and the civil authorities already knew (see point 2, above). It appears that if a civil lawsuit were still possible, nobody in the room would object to it.”
You can find Milwaukee PD and DA numbers on line. Contact them.
Transparent bigotry at it’s finest!
Are you guys nuts? Is there no accountability? Children were molested and raped, Joseph Ratzinger knew about it, Joseph Ratzinger did nothing about it, children continued to be molested and raped. If you knew someone who was molesting a child, wouldn’t you personally kick their ass and then deal with the authorities later in order to help the child? What is happening here is that Joseph Ratzinger knew about it and all of you child rapist defenders are making excuses for him. What is wrong with you? There is nothing good in this story. Wake up and stand up for what’s right!
The Church always needs reform. This is not the first time in history sexual immorality was rampant among the clergy. Pope Sergius III was a 60 year old man with a 15 year old mistress(now that’s bad). Of course there is a BIG moral difference between mere fornication & consensual seduction of adults vs the rape of Children. That can never be forgotten however B16 has done more than any Pope thus far to reform the Church in how it should deal with child rape. He needs to be encouraged & supported. The Times & the anti-Catholic liberal media & the anti-Catholic liberal establishment don’t really want the Pope to succeed. They want to discredit him so they can teach their pro-sexual immorality, pro-abortion & pro-godless agenda without the Church breathing down their necks. If you think the Times really gives a rat’s behind about abused children ask why have they ignored Steve O’Keefe’s exposie on how Planned Parenthood give abortions to underage teenagers to help cover up affairs they been having with adult men. I don’t hear Morreen Dowd complain about that.
Thank you David, but I hope you realize I wasn’t the one who was doubting you! That was someone else.
I agree there is no excuse but one must consider the source. Most of these cases are brought about for sheer bigotry or greed. We are all wound up about a memo from 1982 when there are more pressing cases and opportunities for fuming in our own communities.
I’m making no excuses for any of this. I feel our priests should be held to higher standard and those in authority should be let loose at least. Mahoney comes to mind.
I see most of this as out and out Catholic bashing and most think this just happened. I did as well the way the press reported it! And that’s by design.
Warren
I’ve looked at the sermon from Good Friday. It still disturbs me. Most of it seems pretty good, until the end. He really should’ve rethought that ending.
As to abuse outside of the church, it’s no excuse for what happened in the church. Again, should we not mention abuse in the church because it happens elsewhere to? Where is the logic in that?
I am glad to hear that the church is taking appropriate steps to protect children. Now, let’s take steps to bring pedophiles and all those who protected them to justice, no matter where that investigation leads.
Thank you Lori for your apology… I appreciate it.
Please have a look at your local Megans Law web site. In San Diego county looks like well over 1000 monsters on the streets at the states graces. Many have been diagnosed dangerous. Recently one who did a whole 6 years for a violent attack murdered and raped 2 young ladies. Cops had stopped him over 7 times on parole violations in the past couple years. Alcohol and drugs.
I personally found one I knew years ago and it has un nerved me he is seeing light of day after a minimal sentence.
Yet it’s more fashionable to show outrage over an even the pope may or may not have had privy to 30 years ago.
The Catholic Church has firmer policies in place that any other organization. An elderly priest I know with no issues of the sort was unable to have a young nephew spend the night at his home. I as a sacristist had to have a back ground check and and under go training and I have ZERO contact with anyone!
If your outraged about this. Great but go do something about it at your school district and with your congressman and have the laws made tougher.
Stop bashing it’s bigotry.
Warren
David, you should realize that all the talk coming out of the media in the last few days are distortions (as stupid as the distortions in the original NYT article). Including the “petty gossip” which the media plucked in isolation out of the Pope’s sermon, claiming it was his intentional reaction to the crisis. I find it very unlikely that he meant it that way. Benedict is not accustomed to filling his sermons with vague illusions, but with clear teaching. I think if he actually wants to speak out, he will do so, as he did in the Irish abuse case.
The comparison to the Jews was not made by the Pope. If you read the text of the Franciscan father’s sermon at the papal Mass on Good Friday, you will see that in the context of a sermon that was all about violence in today’s world, he was actually quoting a Jewish friend of his who was speaking of the persecution that the Pope AND CHRISTIANS ALL OVER THE WORLD are now suffering and comparing it to some of the “most shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.” That violence and persecution of Christians would be similar to persecution and violence against Jews is certainly not shocking. Christians are being persecuted and dying for their faith all over the world right now. He wasn’t referring only to the Pope and this crisis and the media wolves took it out of context.
Once again, I understand your anger. But you are letting your emotions dictate everything you do and say here. It wouldn’t hurt you to research the truth of what is being said, rather than just reacting emotionally.
I myself had a very strong emotional reaction of disgust to these stories. I was horrified at the thought of them being true, because I admire Pope Benedict. I didn’t want to think them true, but I didn’t shrink from investigating the truth. I looked at all the original New York Times documentation. I found the original memo in Italian, and since I can read Italian, I recognized its importance. I gave it to Jimmy and we searched all the resources and reported on what we found as objectively as we could.
I’m glad we did this work because even the church hierarchy who were defending Benedict were grasping what really happened. They simply tried to defend the Pope on the basis of the news stories and said “Oh he was merciful to a dying priest.” That was acting defensively. We, on the other hand, investigated, weighed and judged the documents. And we are told we’re just being defensive? Sorry, it’s not so.
It was really stupid of that one person to doubt your story of your abuse. I’m very sorry he said that.
Also S. Murphy… I appreciate much of what you have to say. But I am still angry and this defensiveness about the Pope isn’t going to make the accusations go away.
Okay, Stephen. I know that much of what you are saying makes sense. And before the past week or so (and before the mishandling of this by several Vatican officials, especially the Pope’s Preacher on Good Friday) I would’ve agreed with you that B16 was doing a lot to bring about reconciliation and healing. He had even reversed some of JP2’s actions against theologians, etc. I was applauding B16. Now not only the newspaper revelations but the charge of anti-catholicism have got me believing that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Yeah, the press is gonna do what the press is gonna do. But the truth will come out. You are so right… he must come clean about Munich. But I remain heartbroken by so much of what I’ve heard this past week. I wish it were not so.
*Let’s protect the Pope’s reputation… and then find every excuse we can not to listen to the boys and men who have to live in fear and shame and now face accusations that they want the Pope’s head on a platter. *
No. Let’s protect the Pope’s reputation because the media have generally misunderstood what he’d been doing with respect to the scandal. Sometimes, they figure it out. More or less:
http://danauer.blogspot.com/2010/04/cardinal-ratzinger-did-right-thing.html
This one bishop seems to have gotten a clue around 2001 - no doubt partly as a result of the cases that came across his desk in the 90s, wherein a trial had been delayed for 30 years, or had been initiated in a timely manner (Teta and Trupia in AZ), but not completed for 7 years. The delay wasn’t his fault - he didn’t have the case. The bishop of Tucson did. The problem was the law, the mechanism itself, which has since been improved.
David: yeah, unfortunately, some or Rome’s slowness to react WAS JPII’s fault. Some of it was that the tools - the procedures in canon law - were apparently not suited to the job. That that wasn’t addressed sooner is probably JPII’s fault. He seems to have been in denial. Or something. Maybe someday we’ll know. Probably most of the curia were in denial - thought it was an American problem - until Ratzinger started to get a clue. That’s why it’s frustrating to see him represented as a villain (by MoDo, Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens, etc - I think the investigative journos are more misunderstanding what they’re looking at than acting out of hostility)*, when he seems to have started blindly tapping in the right direction sooner than the others. Some of it was clericalism and old-boy networking - meaning cases in individual dioceses that were covered up are the fault of the local bishop and his chancery office, and maybe somebody in Rome. There’s no one person sitting there saying ‘calling all bishops! Hide the pedophiles.’ That so many bishops did that - probably with the collusion of lay Catholic cops and DAs at least some of the time - is just not surprising, given the concerns for bad publicity and scandal, the fact that society used to sort of (hell, still does) hide this kind of offender within the family. It’s not surprising. It’s totally unacceptable, and we have to make sure it’s corrected. We’re not going to be able to conduct that campaign with a bad map, though.
_______
*OTOH, if it comes out that the diocese of Rome has been hiding perverts in the past 5 years, then by all means, add Pope Benedict to the rogues gallery of incompetent and criminally negligent bishops. I hope and pray that he’s been smart enough to at least be proactive in his own diocese. I also hope and pray that he addresses that early f*ck-up in Munich, and apologizes for it. Even if he didn’t know about it—ship runs aground, the captain can’t tell the board of inquiry ‘it wasn’t my fault - the XO was driving.’ And if the XO offers to take a bullet for you, it’s churlish to actually take him up on it.
PS. David, no one has said questions about either B16 or JP2 are out of court. I agree that such questions in themselves shouldn’t make anyone defensive. Jimmy’s post is solely about the discrepancy between (a) what has been reported about B16 in major news outlets and (b) the known facts. Insisting on accuracy and pointing out misreportage doesn’t entail undue defensiveness about any and all possible questions, nor does it imply that no questions about or criticisms of B16 or JP2 could possibly be legitimate. It simply says: Let’s get our facts straight.
Look, I’m just not convinced by anything I’ve seen here that we should all shut up and let it slide now. Whatever happened in one particular meeting between a Cardinal or two and one bishop in Milwaukee does not eliminate the controversy. It just looks like you folks are grabbing at straws to defend the Pope. I’d rather wait and see. And I am really offended by some of the statements coming out of the Vatican in the past few days. I’ve been overly zealous about this, I can only explain it as a broken heart at seeing such thoughtless things said.
I wish that some of you folks would be equally vocal on behalf of the victims as you are on behalf of the hierarchy.
The Press is not particularly anti-Catholic. It is notorious for seeking scandal everywhere. But just as Tiger Woods got caught with his pants down, so have the hierarchy, and for all you know, the Pope may be revealed as having his down too soon enough.
The Catholic Church is one of the most powerful institutions in the world. To claim that it is being persecuted here is simply disingenous. There would be no scandal had there been no pedophile priests reassigned to duties and protected by the hierarchy in the past.
David,
the only thing I’ve accused you of is lashing out in your posts instead of contributing anything constructive. I haven’t accused you of making up your story, but if you want to feign outrage at my noticing that (a) combox commenters are not always truthful and (b) I don’t know you from Adam, we’ll all have to live with that.
I have no problem acknowledging that for all I know you may well be in good faith. You seem unable to make the same concession: We must have a “persecution complex,” be in “denial,” etc. Your good faith or bad faith is no threat to my worrldview, but evidently your worldview is too fragile to allow the good faith of others who question you or even ask what you mean.
Thank you Bernardo.
I just want to say that I’ve been equally vociferous in arguing with some friends (particularly on facebook) who seem to take particular glee in this scandal and claim that (take your pick) a) if only the church didn’t expect priests to be celebate, b) if only the church approved of homosexuality, c) if only the church ordained women, yadda yadda yadda.
These people are conflating their anti-catholicism with the real issue.
Sexual abuse is not about moral theology or who you ordain. It’s about the abuse of power.
And that is where the hierarchy need to be held accountable… and if it goes all the way to Pope and we find that he did wrong, he too should be held accountable.
Please stop assuming folks that just because he’s the Pope he needs defending and that this is necessarily anti-Catholic defamation.
The Pope could end this scandal pretty quickly by directly addressing the survivors with a promise to weed out all corruption and to make sure that children will take priority over “dying old men” who want to die in the dignity of the priesthood.
Let me repeat… I don’t think the problem is Catholic teaching, moral or theological. I think the problem is abuse of power at many levels.
And it is shocking to think that it might go as high as the Pope. I hope it doesn’t. But why all this defensiveness? Why these attempts to compare it to anti-semitism?
So far, we’ve got one document. And a lot of excuses (it wasn’t Ratzingers responsibility at the time)... well, who’s responsibility was it at the time? Why aren’t we finding out who was in charge of this before it went to the CDF?
Who was it? Anybody?
I fear that the answer to this question will be JPII. I hope not. But I fear it is. If it wasn’t will somebody please tell me the name of who was?
Amen Elsa & David.
It’s only because of the common law tradition (sadly—but Deo gratias) that this housecleaning is taking place. David, you’ve got your priorities straight. “Keep the faith, change the Church.”
A.) A number of priests committed abominable crimes against young people, including children, and Church leaders—whether by unintentional incompetence or willful blindness—mishandled cases and complaints.
B.) The New York Times is, in the name of newsgathering, conducting a calculated disinformation campaign against the Catholic Church.
These statements are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, as Mr. Akin and Ms. Pieper have ably documented, both are true.
I ask the pope’s more casual accusers: Is it not right and good to call for justice to prevail over not one but *both* these delinquencies?
Z. Treed
Have I said “I was violated so B16 should be thrown to the lions?” Please tell me where I have said this!
And now I’m accused of making it up. So that’s ultimately how you think of the men and boys who were violated… why the benefit of the doubt must be for the accused, not the children.
And this defensiveness and persecution complex has to stop. It’s getting you no where… no you don’t believe this problem is widespread… but it is… thousands of boys and girls have been abused by Catholic priests who were in good standing with the church at the time it happened and who were protected under the same assumption you are making about me… that the victims probably made it up.
Yes, let’s remember he was a “dying man” and put all our sympathy with the pedophile… that’s the problem and that’s why this public relations blitz trying to compare this to anti-semitism is backfiring all around.
YOU DON’T GET IT!
When will the stories of the children be more important than a dying old man?
When will the children be listened to, and the vulnerable protected instead of a powerful pope?
David, what exactly are you saying?
Why do you think anyone would be shocked by your story? Do you think we’re all in denial or all so naive that we don’t know that such things happen—and worse? Not knowing you from Adam, I have no way of judging whether your specific story is true; certainly such things happen, but equally people troll in fora like this saying all kinds of things. If your story is true, I’m not shocked; if you’re making it up, I’m not shocked.
If your story is true, your ragged emotions are certainly understandable. But you seem determined to take offense and pick quarrels even when no one is quarreling with you. You say things like “how can I not be angry at the assertion (now sort of retracted) that criticism of the church is equivalent to some of the worst violence committed against the Jews?” even though (a) no one said that (the Vatican preacher in question was not speaking about “criticism of the church” in general, but specifically about false charges against B16, and (b) no one here is defending those comments or has said you shouldn’t object to them. (My own feeling would be to save “anger” for a more meaningful target, but I wouldn’t make a thing of it.)
“Widespread” is not a word that can be realistically used for what you describe. Even the Church’s harshest critics haven’t produced evidence supporting such a charge.
Who would question the sense of being overly cautious to protect children? But again, what exactly are you saying? That a dying man is a threat to children unless he is laicized before he dies? That anyone in a Roman collar can be presumed guilty until proved innocent? That would seem to be the alternative to the “centralized procedures,” “legalism and technicalities” that you find so objectionable.
All you are doing in your comments is lashing out. If your story is true, that’s understandable, and I don’t hold it against you. But however understandable it may be, that doesn’t make it more constructive. I am all for accountability and transparency. I am all for protecting children first. But if your argument is “I was violated as a child, therefore B16 should be fed to the lions,” I’m sorry, but that’s not constructive. I feel for you, and if there were any way I could help you, or any other child, I would. If you have any ideas, I’m listening.
Excellent work Mr. Aikin. Folks like Elsa are rather scary—the truth doesn’t matter if it achieves the ends you want? I hope you’re never on the receiving end of that kind of witch trial. And no, David, he wasn’t referring to the Holocaust, though he did compare systemic violence to that suffered by women. But you don’t seem to be in a place where the truth matters, either.
Before this latest scandal I had been impressed by Benedict… when he went to Australia and apologized, I was moved to tears. I thought he was doing a lot of things to reconcile some of the wounds within the Catholic church in many ways, including this.
But how can I not be angry at the assertion (now sort of retracted) that criticism of the church is equivalent to some of the worst violence committed against the Jews?
And it’s not just the case of Murphy in Wisconsin and the deaf boys.
And this assumption that it was somehow the personal failings of these priests alone that needs to be addressed.
This is widespread. And you folks need to hear the stories of men like me… you would be shocked by them more than you are over attacks on the Pope, if you knew how these things happened.
I was literally raped, orally and anally, physically assaulted, and then told it was my fault, that God was punishing me for my sins.
I was lucky compared to a friend of mine who tried to get away from the priest, and he chased after him in a car… my friend hid in the woods, the priest found him, forced him into the car, and raped him.
He was raped with the branch of a tree, by the way, so let’s not pretend that this was sexual. He was then forced to fellate the priest.
But please, let’s have our centralized procedures in place first and foremost.
The legalism and the technicalities are besides the point.
Sometimes you have to do what is right, sometimes you have to be over cautious in protecting children, rather than in protecting the institution.
Let’s protect the Pope’s reputation… and then find every excuse we can not to listen to the boys and men who have to live in fear and shame and now face accusations that they want the Pope’s head on a platter.
Whether the New York Times stories are accurate or misleading, if it were not for organizations like the New York Times and its stories, what fire would be lit under the behinds of those responsible for housecleaning the Church?
All I’m hearing is plausible deniability over and over here.
There is no excuse for the church not to turn such cases over to civil authorities for appropriate investigation.
The Episcopal and Anglican Churches have canon law too… a priest has to be placed on trial in a church court to be defrocked.
But that process did not inhibit the bishop in that case from turning over the evidence to the authorities and allowing the priest in question to go to trial.
I don’t care who was in what precise meeting… the church chose to cover up these matters in order to maintain it’s own reputation.
They did the equivalent of sacrificing children to Molech (cf OT). The boys were treated as suspicious instead of the pedophiles.
And lets not forget, the church knew that many of these men had been abusing boys, and they still did nothing in so many instances.
The buck needs to stop somewhere. If the Pope has done all you say he has, then why doesn’t he speak up, instead of letting his preacher on Good Friday compare this to the holocaust (and don’t get technical, that’s what he was alluding to and everybody knows it).
Why not defend the Pope with the evidence of what he did to correct the situation, instead of engage in this defensive notion that this is anti-Catholic defamation going on.
The church must accept responsibility and accountability, weed out every pedophile it can, reprimand any bishop who failed to act properly, and make abundantly clear that the culture of silence around child abuse will not prevail.
To those of us who were abused, nothing less will do.
Hiding behind procedures sounds suspicious like “I was just following orders.”
Why didn’t the police prosecute? Was it because the cloak of secrecy prevented the timely release of information necessary for prosecution? If so, then with such secrecy, how do we know there aren’t a hundred smoking guns yet to be revealed that would put yet another very different spin on the story? The public will not trust an organization that wraps itself in secrecy.
“What I’m saying is there was an atmosphere in the Roman Church that these things needed to be kept secret… and I blame JPII and Ratzinger for that atmosphere, that climate of secrecy. Whether this is the smoking gun or just smoke… something smells, and it isn’t good.”
Yes, secrecy. That is why the AP et al are able to get documentation so easily because of all of the secrecy.
“The Pope can end this pretty quickly by coming clean fully and completely in a way that takes full responsibility for any mistakes, apologizes to the victims, excoriates those who did nothing, and changes the rules without blaming others for the problem.”
Have you read the Pope’s letter to the Church in Ireland? David, admit what is painfully obvious. You want the Pope’s head, miter and all, on a platter and nothing else he says or does will be enough. I am still waiting for you to respond to the fact that the civil authorities were notified and did nothing. Are you going to ask for their heads as well?
A.M.D.G.
The Catholic Church is the only institution the world demands an apology from on a perpetual basis for every, single bad thing any Catholic has ever done. Do they ask the some of Protestant, Jewish or Muslim clerics who sexually abused kids? Of course not.
A child is 100 times more likely to be sexually abused by a public school teacher in America than by a Catholic priest? Shall we close every public school? The fact of the matter is the Holy Father is doing more to combat predatory priests than any Catholic on the planet. He should be commended for his efforts. He needs our prayers now more than ever.
David,
What we’re seeing in all these ‘smoking gun’ cases the media are turning up, is that 1) Canon LAW is just that - there are rules and procedures that need to be followed. Local bishops can’t just laicize priests - priests have a right to appeal to Rome on that issue.
2) Before 2001, when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith received jurisdiction over all sex-abuse cases, CDF was involved in a few sex-abuse cases that involved the only sex-crime CDF DID have jurisdiction over - solicitation in the confessional.
3) CDF’s involvement in these cases consists of advising the local bishops on canon law procedure related to these cases. In the Murphy case, CDF points out some potential legal difficulties and discusses strategies. In the Arizona cases, CDF finalizes the individual’s laicization after the local ordinary drags the perps through all the hoops then required under canon law. In one case, they expedite his laicization after another dicastery sat on the case for a couple or three years (Trupia).
4) When CDF gets jurisdiction in 2001, Cdl Ratzinger realizes that the canonical procedures are burdensome and take too long. He procedes to streamline them, without throwing due process in the trash.
5) The media are completely misunderstanding what they are looking at (certain bloggers and columnists are just lying). They don’t get that there was a legal procedure. They think Canon Law is just a phrase that means, ‘Cdl Ratzinger doing whatever he felt like and dragging his feet on really horrifying cases.’ It actually means what civil and criminal law mean in the US - a cumbersome set of procedures that have evolved over time in response to perceived needs. Once the Vatican (Ratzinger) perceived a need to improve procedures for laicizing child molesters, he took steps to do so.
6) Bottom line: as John Allen says, Pope Benedict has been part of the problem, but he’s also part of the solution. He’s been ahead of most of his brother bishops in recognizing the need to fix how the Church deals with molesters. He may have been slow to recognize the problem, and he either wasn’t paying enough attention as an archbishop, or was party to a decision to send a priest-perv in Munich back to a parish - and he needs to explain that, or at least apologize for it. What he doesn’t need, and what we don’t need, is for him to be demonized as some kind of war-criminal, when he’s been trying to correct the problem.
Pope Benedict DOES need to hold a Synod or something, to ensure all bishops are clear on the concept: 1) protect the kids 2) should that fail, involve the civil authorities, suspend the perpetrators, and start the process of laicization 3) apologize for any past cases, and make whatever reparations need to be made - monetary and spiritual.
I suspect the secrecy’s been implicit for a long time - about all sorts of things, not just this - centuries. Much longer than JPII or Benedict have been around.
I’m sorry for what you’ve suffered.
David, once again, DID YOU READ JIMMY’S ARTICLE AND THE MEMO?
The document makes it very clear that Fr. Murphy WASN’T being allowed to die “in the dignity of his priesthood” because he wanted to. You’re still going with the standard MSM meme, which simply isn’t true.
The above document shows that the CDF would have been quite willing to laicize Murphy if the situation continued to warrant it. In fact, they didn’t seem to think much of Fr. Murphy’s letter, and did not believe his statement that he had repented. They were actually asking the bishops to get tough on him and apply penalties to him if necessary, including laicization.
Perhaps the CDF was insisting on applying a pastoral solution in the diocese first, because of the strain in the deaf community, many of whose members thought Fr. Murphy innocent and wouldn’t believe the victims. If he had been made to acknowledge his guilt, ask forgiveness and make amends, as the CDF requested, this would have probably helped heal the rift in the community more than a trial that would have dragged on for years. The seeking of a pastoral solution was also necessary because Catholic Church canon law requires this to be done before going to trial(canon 1341). And the bishops of Milwaukee and Superior had never really tried any pastoral approach in this case, in spite of some of their statements to the contrary.
I don’t know anything about the way the Episcopal Church handles these things, but it may be the case that a bishop there can defrock anyone he likes without going through a centralized process at the church’s highest level. As I said, I don’t know. The Catholic Church works according to its own rules and it does have a centralized process in Rome, which sometimes does take time. The fact that it takes time is not necessarily a sign that the Church doesn’t acknowledge the victims or want to help them. It’s purpose is to ensure a process that is fair to everyone. So don’t compare apples and oranges.
I understand you are angry and I sympathize, but don’t let anger impair your ability to think or read.
Thanks for presenting this translation, Jimmy! It’s appalling that a formerly respected newspaper presented this article as a piece of investigative journalism, but they apparently didn’t even bother to read the original texts. Where did their standards go?
David, you are asking the Pope to admit to something he didn’t do or have control over. Abuse happens in schools, churchs, camps, everywhere that adults can gain advantage over children. The only reason people want the Pope to admit fault is because the Catholic Church has a head—and there is no other organization that covers the world and also has a leader.
I’m sorry… but why didn’t the CDF demand the defrocking of Murphy? Why was he allowed to die in “the dignity of his priesthood” because he wanted it that way?
Why were so many pedophile priests transferred to other parishes or given multiple opportunities to commit their heinous deeds? Why weren’t they weeded out, instead of offered therapy and protection?
What the church thought was being responsible was actually making things worse. That they didn’t comprehend this is mindboggling. I know of a case of an Episcopal priest accused of doing much the same in Wisconsin back in the 1980’s… he was not only turned into the police, but his bishop defrocked him immediately and he spent 7 years in jail.
If the Episcopal bishop understood the necessity of dealing with this forthrightly and immediately, why couldn’t the Roman bishop? I’m not saying the Episcopal Church is perfect… of course it isn’t, and all churches are human institutions given to mistakes and errors.
What I’m saying is there was an atmosphere in the Roman Church that these things needed to be kept secret… and I blame JPII and Ratzinger for that atmosphere, that climate of secrecy. Whether this is the smoking gun or just smoke… something smells, and it isn’t good.
The Pope can end this pretty quickly by coming clean fully and completely in a way that takes full responsibility for any mistakes, apologizes to the victims, excoriates those who did nothing, and changes the rules without blaming others for the problem.
I didn’t really proofread my earlier comment, and it might be misleading.
Let me make it clear that I am not trying to defend Archbishop Weakland and the other bishops in the dioceses in Wisconsin, who handled this case very badly and basically did little to nothing for the victims for decades. But you can’t say after reading the memo that the CDF had no sense of responsibility and was doing nothing in the case.
So why no noises about the civil authorities doing nothing at the time? That’s equally bad! Of course, the media is too busy going after the church to even care…
Thank you so much for writing this and for your hard work at uncovering the truth! The truth is a good thing to have. Although we now know that much of what is being said against the Holy Father is false and slanderous, I believe that we are suffering these public attacks as punishment for the many horrible crimes committed by too many priests, crimes abetted by bishops and other priests (e.g., Mons. Gruber) who did not remove them from ministry. Now we Catholics need to pray, fast, and work mercy.
chrysologus.blogspot.com
David, I’m very sorry about the abuse you suffered. No one can excuse the one who did it, nor anyone who just stood by or abetted or covered it up. Yes, the Church as a whole has a lot to answer for.
Yet you still haven’t answered my question: What makes you think this case was wrongly handled, and by Ratzinger and his congregation in particular? Or is he just guilty by association, no matter what? If it turns out that he’s guilty of something, then we have reason to criticize. His guilt in anything has yet to be determined. What do you have to say about this case from the facts, the documentation? That was my question.
@David: “Why wasn’t Murphy turned into the police? Why wasn’t it made known publically that he had done this?”
Evidently you aren’t following Jimmy’s coverage. Murphy WAS reported to the police. The civil authorities declined to prosecute.
“The church is not going to recover from this by covering it up and claiming no responsibility.”
Are you reading the posts you’re commenting on? Clearly there is blame to be apportioned, including to clerics and bishops, and no one is saying otherwise. By all means, let’s go after the guilty. That has nothing to do with the clamor for Ratzinger’s head on a platter by any means necessary, and damn the facts.
Why wasn’t Murphy turned into the police? Why wasn’t it made known publically that he had done this? Why was he allowed to retire in dignity? Why does the church demand non-disclosure agreements with the victims of these pedophiles when they offer to pay for counseling? The church is not going to recover from this by covering it up and claiming no responsibility. There needs to be a thorough house-cleaning of the hierarchy to root out every priest, bishop and official who helped protect pedophiles at the expense of children. There are thousands of boys who were abused by priests. I am one of them. It is time for the church to stop claiming that it is being persecuted, and to start taking responsibility and let the chips fall where they may.
Great job with this, Jimmy!
David, in what way do you think the handling of this case was wrong? You ought to do something more than just spout unsupported opinions. The documentation of the way the case was handled was given to you by Jimmy. Did you actually read it? If you have some reasoned criticism to make, we’d love to hear it. For now, you just sound like you’re on auto-pilot.
Never mind that the one who leaked this story to the Times and stands to benefit from it financially, is an anti-Catholic activist and member of the ACLU.
These people don’t just want redress for the victims and to punish the perps, they want to reform (destroy) the Catholic Church, because they don’t like what it stands for, its teachings on sexual morality, for example.
As Illyich Lenin said, “First a little revelry, then the torrent of blood.”
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010/03/jeff-anderson-author-of-of-milwaukee.html
@David: “Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge of the CDF at the time. Did the buck not stop with him? What directives did he lay down for the handling of such cases?”
If you read Jimmy’s earlier post, you would know that the CDF did not have jurisdiction of abuse cases per se at that time. That was a later expansion of their mandate. So no, the buck was not Ratzinger’s.
So what is this? Plausible deniability? Cardinal Ratzinger was in charge of the CDF at the time. Did the buck not stop with him? What directives did he lay down for the handling of such cases? Wasn’t the handling of this case all wrong regardless? It’s time to pull back on any canonization of JPII until his role is fully understood in this matter as well. The Church will only overcome this by making a clean breast of the matter. Boys were harmed and are continuing to be harmed because of a culture of silence and protection of pedophile priests… that is more important than if the Pope’s reputation is harmed.
I am certain that neither Mr. Akin nor anyone else is in denial about what happened in this most grievous case. Mr. Akin has said again and again that there are legitimate points where the Church can be criticized for how things were carried out.
The fact of the matter is that facts were misrepresented and passed for news. In our need for news every second of every day, news agencies are failing to do their due diligence and check FACTS of stories before running with them. Mr. Akin is not suggesting that this is not a heinous crime. Mr. Akin has no where suggested that the Church is above criticism. What Mr. Akin is saying is that the Pope has been implicated by the NY Times in something in which he had no involvement.
This type of misrepresentation would not stand in any other circumstance except for the last acceptable prejudice against the Catholic Church. Are Muslims kicked around in the news in the same manner?
Blah Blah Blah…and on about words when kids were abused. The point is the kids were abused and your rattling on and on about the New York Times. Hooray for the NY Times for writing and making an effort to expose the Catholic Church. Stop parsing words and organize something for these victims. Stop making excuses for the pope on down.
You are in denial it’s a sad thing to see…. treatment of deaf abused was dismissed as ‘petty gossip too. When in a hole it is advisable to cease digging.
Can this article somehow in someway be publicized on a few of the major media outlets, i.e. Fox, CNN?
Of course those who want to believe the so-called culpability of Pope Benedict are still going to be voicing their attacks; but such an article as this gives voice to the truth and allows a more reasonable discussion to root out any remaining remnants of criminal priests.
I’ll bet it sucks to be Andrew Sullivan right now?
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.