Father Thomas Brundage is a quiet man who enjoys his work as judicial vicar for the Archdiocese of Anchorage and pastor of Saint Michael’s and Holy Family parishes.
Father Brundage juggles his many duties without calling much attention to himself. Just over a month ago, however, he was jerked into the national spotlight when The New York Times ran a story about Father Lawrence Murphy, the now deceased priest from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee who molested several boys at Saint John’s School for the Deaf from 1950 to 1974. In 1996 the Archdiocese of Milwaukee began canonical proceedings against Father Murphy, and Father Brundage, then judicial vicar in Milwaukee, tried the case.
Register correspondent Jeff Gardner spoke with Father Brundage about the Murphy case, its coverage in the media, and the attempts by some to blame Pope Benedict XVI for Murphy’s crimes.
How did you first hear that the Murphy case was in the news?
Just before Holy Week, I was driving home, and I heard on the radio the words “Father Murphy,” “abuse” and “Archdiocese of Milwaukee.” The archdiocese initiated the case against Father Murphy in 1996, and it was one, among thousands of cases since, that I had tried some 12 years ago. When I got home, I was stunned to see many of the documents from the case posted across the Internet.
Concerning the case documents, much has been made in the media about the fact the Archdiocese of Milwaukee kept them secret all these years. Why were they kept secret?
First and foremost to protect the victims. People accuse the Catholic Church of being “secretive” in some sort of conspiratorial way. This is not true. The things that Father Murphy’s victims told us were so sensitive that if they had been made known, the person would have been victimized twice. If we had laicized Father Murphy, that would have been made known.There would have been an announcement that he had been laicized after having been found guilty of the crime of sexual abuse of a minor.
Can you explain the canonical meaning of the word “secret?”
When we say “secret,” this means “the keeping of a confidence,” a “confidentiality” that is there to protect the common good. The seal of the confessional is a good example. People need to be confident that what they tell the priest and God in confession will not be revealed. “Secret” in English has a negative connotation — as if you are trying to cover up something. “Secret” in canon law is better rendered as “confidential.”
Did the archdiocese cover up the Murphy case to avoid embarrassment, a scandal, as the media, including Laurie Goodstein of The New York Times, have suggested?
Absolutely not. Again, as with “secret,” “scandal” in English has the meaning that someone has done something wrong and you are trying to cover it up, whereas in canon law “scandal” means acting in such a way that the faithful are not inordinately affected by something that was confidential. So in the case of Murphy, having the victims’ names known, this would have harmed the victims and angered (shocked) the people — that would be the scandal that you would want to avoid.
Jeff Anderson, an attorney in St. Paul, Minn., has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of one of Father Murphy’s victims. In it, Anderson names, among others, Benedict XVI as responsible for failing to act in the Murphy case and for covering it up. What are your thoughts on Anderson and this lawsuit?
He is overreaching, and eventually our legal system will work to show that. He is going after what he thinks are deep pockets, and in this regard, his record speaks for itself, dot, dot, dot.
Also, this idea that Benedict XVI, who in 1996 was Cardinal Ratzinger and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, tried to delay or cover up this case is false, just not true. The truth is that Cardinal Ratzinger was the architect of a new process for hearing these cases in 2001, and there was a distinct change in procedure that bypassed many of the judicial hurdles that previous law called for. After 2001 it was considerably easier to try these cases, and the leader of this movement was Cardinal Ratzinger.
Concerning the Murphy case, Cardinal Ratzinger in no way delayed it. I met him in a restaurant in Rome in 2001, and if he had been involved, I would have brought it up.
Since Holy Week, the media, and notably The New York Times and the AP, have covered the Murphy story on a weekly, almost daily, basis. What are your thoughts on the media coverage of the case?
The continuous media coverage of this case is damaging the relationship between the clergy and the laity, and it is tragic. But we must not blame the media for covering the story. There are, as I see it, three motives driving the coverage. The first is truth, and as in all cases of sexual abuse of minors, it is pretty ugly. But we cannot run or hide from the fact that enormous harm was done to children — that is simply the truth. Secondly, there has been big money is this area, for both lawyers and the media. Third and finally, there are people who see the Church weakened and oppose the Church on issues of life and natural law. These people are using the media coverage as a way to destroy the Church’s credibility.
You have had a lot to say about the Murphy case, including that those days were “the darkest of my priesthood.” Can you expand on that a little?
I am a priest, and what affects one of us affects all. It was gut-wrenching to listen to the testimony of Murphy’s victims. For nearly two years of my life, it was my highest priority to get justice for them, to bring this case to conclusion. It was difficult because, for those two years, I could not discuss most of the case with anyone. I could talk to my spiritual director, and I thank God for him. I would see him once a month for an hour, and I would talk for the first 59 minutes, and he would usually end with something that tried to put everything in perspective.
Do you have any regrets about the Murphy case?
We tried to do everything right in this case so that there would be no reason for any decision by the Archdiocese [of Milwaukee] to be overturned by Rome. Father Murphy even had an excellent canon lawyer, Father Patrick Lagges, who is one of the finest canon lawyers in the United States.
Once a crime has been committed, we have to take responsibility for that, and do whatever is just and humanly possibly to redress that wrong. I tried my best through a canonical penal trial to get justice for the victims. My largest regret in the case was the premature death of Father Murphy. Things would have been very different if Father Murphy had not died. It would have been a huge thing for the deaf community in Milwaukee to know that their Church was able to find him guilty and remove him from the priesthood.
Jeff Gardner writes from Onalaska, Wisconsin.
John Zmirak: We Are All Islamists Now
Jimmy Akin: Was James, not Peter, the head of the Church after Jesus?
Comments
Post a Comment
As I read some of the statements made by Brundage I can not help but notice he must not believe in the commandment: “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Time for confession father.
This has a familar ring. As when Clinton said “What is your definition of is “is”?
What definitions of secret and scandal do we buy? Not only does Canon Law supersede the law of God, it also must supersede the definitions of English words. I wonder what secret and scandal mean in Spanish?
I guess that you only publish comments that support the obstruction and twisting of definitions to fit what Father Brundage states in this trumped up version of really happened.
Sorry, but Father Brundage’s story just doesn’t fly! It comes no where near to getting off of the ground. We’re talking about 200 deaf children being abused, raped, and sodomized in this “Coverup!” No other word will suffice! Father Brundage was part of a coverup, based on the Vatican directive, “Crimen Sollicitationis!” How stupid does he think the public is? How stupid does he think that members of the Laity are? The only Catholics, with whom I have spoken, who still believe this kind of lame rhetoric are half senile and in their 80’s and 90’s! It is men like him, who I sincerely hope end up in World Court, standing right next to the Pope!
“confidential”, “secret,” “scandal”,and “First and foremost to protect the victims”?
You can redefine these words over and over, but what really happened is children were being sexually abused by clergy, and the church leaders were covering it up for whatever reason they want to call it.
It always was and is a crime to sexually abused a child. That is the real truth and definition.
No excuses for not contacting the law enforcement immediately, so that THEY can do the investigating.
If Father Brundage was not vowed to celibacy and had himself a couple of kids he would know by now that being scandalized over the criminal behavior of priests is a piece of cake next to having your children sodomized by one.
Brundage’s defense of the massive cover-up of serial child rapist Father Murphy is a disgrace.
Where do these men come from?
What a disgraceful puff piece on Brundage.
No mention of the grave errors in his statement where he accused the Times of misquoting him when he had to admit later they never quoted him, period.
Also, his insistence that the trial had never been abated was also shown to be pure fantasy when Brundage had to admit it was he who wrote the letter for Archbishop Weakland stating that had indeed been done.
The man has NO credibility. He is playing cute when he should know that no one ever suggested releasing victims’ names. His parsing the meaning of confidentiality versus secrecy is unconvincing since even bishops now acknowledge that cover-ups were endemic to protect the institution.
(Sentence deleted.)
The word that I’m trying to find to describe this article is what a bull does in the barn yard.
Those commenting here seem blissfully ignorant of the facts and simply looking for opportunities to continue to slander the Church. In the case of Fr. Murphy, there was no possibility of a “cover up” because in the accusations in 1974 by one of Murphy’s former students was made to the civil authorities. The civil authorities chose not to pursue the case.
The canonical case against Murphy would have done nothing more to protect children from his acting as a priest because after these accusations he never had another priestly assignment.
The reference by Ms. Guzman to the document Crimen Sollicitationis as some sort of conspiracy is quite ludicrous. It is a document that details how to protect the seal of confession (protecting the person confessing) in handling canonical cases against priests accused of soliciting sinful acts in the confessional. It has nothing to do with dealing with civil authorities.
Those who cannot understand that words take on different connotations in different languages are being quite obtuse.
It is time for commentors such as these to realize that Archbishop Weakland and his ilk, who fostered conditions that make such crimes possible are on their way out. It is not celibacy, orthodoxy, or hierarchy but the sexual libertine culture that invaded the Church that allowed such unspeakable crimes to occur.
OK folks, let’s calm down a little here. It’s obvious to me that you who have commented so far did not read the interview very closely. Father Brundage had nothing to do with these crimes or any sort of cover-up. He was assigned by Archbishop Weakland to be the judge in a canonical trial of Father Murphy.
The definitions that Father Brundage gave of “secret” and “scandal” are definitions within the Church’s tradition of canon law. Think back a few years when Archbishop Burke was in the news because of his stand on John Kerry. His primary concern was that Kerry would scandalize the faithful. But he didn’t mean “scandalize” as in “shock.” It was scandalize in the sense of an action that will cause another to more easily justify his own sin. So Murphy’s actions were scandalous on two levels—at the level of shock, but also at the level of making it easier for others who might know about his crimes to think that their own crimes were justifiable as well because, “Well, Murphy did it.”
As to “secret,” a couple of things: 1) All canonical trials are conducted in secret. That doesn’t mean they take place in an underground cave. It means they are completely confidential. Trial judges, advocates, defenders of the bond, promoters of justice, auditors, transcribers—all of these people are compelled to keep quiet about the details of the cases they work on. How would you like it if you filed for an annulment and someone from the Tribunal spilled out the tale of your failed marriage to everyone? That’s what we’re talking about here, folks.
Second, common sense tells you that Father Brundage is right. If Murphy had been convicted and laicized, the general public would have known about it. What we did not need to know—and still do not need to know—were the specifics of his crimes. I have no interest in hearing the particulars of how he molested children. And if I had been molested, I certainly wouldn’t want those particulars known to the general public. Just like with an annulment case, can you imagine someone seeing you in the checkout line at the grocery store? “Oh, aren’t you the guy?! Yeah, Murphy pulled your pants down, right? And then he….” As Father Brundage said, it would have victimized them again.
Folks, your anger is misplaced. Father Brundage had nothing to do with the cover-up of the Murphy case. That was done by three succeeding archbishops—Meyer, Cousins and Weakland. And do not forget that the police were informed of Father Murphy’s proclivities and declined to take any action. Father Brundage was pulled into this at the tail end of Murphy’s life, when this should have been taken care of many, many years before by his superior and his superior’s predecessors. Do not take him to task for carrying out the job that he was asked to do and which he did out of obedience to his lawful authority and which he did within the confines of canon law, a law which is there to protect the rights of all Catholics—even those who have done grievous, grievous wrong.
Carolyn Disco, you wrote: “No mention of the grave errors in his statement where he accused the Times of misquoting him when he had to admit later they never quoted him, period.”
Funny, but it seems to me that Father Brundage owned up to that misunderstanding on his own. And that’s what it was—a misunderstanding, not “grave errors”. Give me a break. The Times carried an AP piece which misquoted him and when he found that out, he apologized right away on his own. Gee, haven’t seen the Times do that yet when they got the ENTIRE STORY WRONG by blaming it on the Pope.
“Also, his insistence that the trial had never been abated was also shown to be pure fantasy when Brundage had to admit it was he who wrote the letter for Archbishop Weakland stating that had indeed been done.” Carolyn (if that’s your real name), I spoke with Father Brundage myself. I am absolutely convinced that he is telling the truth that he does not remember writing that memo. But please notice something else—while the trial may have been abated, the Archbishop was at the same time applying administrative penal sanctions against a man who was recalcitrant. He was certainly about 36 years too late, but the penalties were being put into place.
In fact, Murphy’s doctor told the judges that Murphy could not come to Milwaukee to stand trial because he could not travel more than 20 miles from his home due to ill health. And yet he died on August 21, 1998 at the Oneida Indian Casino in Green Bay, 100+ miles from his home in Boulder Junction. Do you get it? Murphy was a liar.
As far as all the claims of cover-up, you people need to understand a couple of things. First, Father Brundage had nothing to do with any cover-up. Second, if this was a cover-up, can any of you explain to me why there were 80+ pages of documentation that the New York Times posted on their website—from Murphy’s file? I mean, if that’s a cover-up, would someone from the mob please get over to the Cousins Center to show them how to do it properly, and quick?
I am responding to the notion that Rev. Brundage is some how inventing or “parsing” the meaning of “English words” in order to “twist” things in his favor.
First, the words in question, “scandal” and “secret”, are in fact Greek and Latin words respectively that were brought into English. They had fixed meanings for over a thousand years before being co-opted into the various emerging tongues (like English). Both meant originally in English what they still do in Latin (scandal became a Latin word long before it became an English word) but then drifted in meaning.
Secretus means only “set apart” though figuratively that includes the meaning “in confidence”. Thus, the Vatican Secret Archives are not “secret” in the modern English sense, but in the archaic English/Latin sense of “set apart for the pope and not belonging to anyone else”; its contents are in fact open to scholars. Within canon law, it does specifically mean “in confidence” and only that. There are better Latin words for “secret” in the modern English “conspiracy” sense.
Likewise, skandalon means a “stumbling block/snare/offense” and to “give scandal” has always meant to trip somebody up spiritually or in modern speak, “harm their development”. For instance, Saint Paul insists that eating meat sacrificed before idols is completely fine because the idols are fake and cannot somehow adulterate the meat. But that is a moot point if doing so would send someone else who had a less sophisticated understanding off the rail—so don’t “give scandal” and mess them up by doing it in front of them.
These meanings are the way the words are used in “Catholic speak” in general and in Catholic canon law in particular—that is, Catholics have not lost the actual meaning of them. Furthermore, The Code of Canon Law (canon law is the oldest continually functioning legal system in the world) is promulgated in Latin and is then translated in English. So not only is there continual usage of these words since their introduction within English in the exact meaning explained by Rev. Brundage, but there is a reinforcement of their original meaning when the law is re-translated into English from the Latin.
So when a canon lawyer says that terms like “scandal” and “secret” have a specific meaning when used within a Catholic canon law proceeding, he is not inventing anything but simply pointing out an overwhelmingly obvious fact that has a direct bearing on the understanding of the documents in the case at hand. These words really do mean what he says they mean within that context. It is unfortunate that the words have lost their meanings for people outside of “those in the know”, but there it is. Similar misunderstandings exist when approaching specialized domains like our own civil law and there need not be any idea that they are “twisting words”. For example, “relief” has a definition in a legal context fixed long ago and different from everyday usage—in fact, the legal usage is actually closer to the original meaning of the word. But we do not therefore get angry that judges are lying about the way they use the word.
Note that none of this touches on whether or not there was some sort of cover-up. It is to point out that if there was, it does not involve any twisting of words on the part of Rev. Brundage; the righteous indignation displayed in previous comments is entirely misplaced on that count.
For an interesting read on this issue written earlier in the last century, here’s G.K. Chesterton in the “Some Of Our Errors” chapter of “The Thing” (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/The_Thing.txt)
Perhaps it’s a projection on my part but I see this priest as ‘deprived’. It’s all smoke and mirrors folks, these guys are so needy I can feel it through the monitor. Mandated celibacy will have to go. I like the part of the interview where Fr. Brundage casually mentions Ratzinger’s name and let’s us know how accessible he was. There he was, Joe Ratzinger having lunch at the Vatican cafeteria. Yup, Fr. Brundage needs a good wife or a hot boyfriend if that is his inclination. the heavenly union is more than a nice metaphor father, we get to know something of it’s reality here and now. There are a lot of folks who got to know the reality of HELL courtesy of the local catholic priest.
What saddens me most about the commentators is the quick judgment of the pen they write. I thank God the truth is coming out. Some of it is very ugly to broadly condemn the entire body Catholic Church is overreaching. Poor decisions were made and they must be held accountable, but why the hoopla nearly 40 years later? The Catholic church today is very different from the Catholic church of the ‘70’s. I know in our diocese there are massive changes in the way volunteers and priests interact with our children. Let’s get that word out. What is being reported in the media, these lawsuits - well - personally, it’s not right to accuse when the person who did the damage no longer is alive. I trust that God will work out his perfect vengeance as He promises.
Jeanne Guzman, you can believe as you wish,but when you put down Fr.Brundage and at the same time make a juvenile statement (and I quote) “The only Catholics with whom I have spoken, who still believe this lame rhetoric are half senile and in their 80’s & 90’s”. I do not know what business or profession you are in but do you go into nursing homes and discuss this with the senile 80-90’s patients or do you go to senior centers where the 80’s and 90’s are playing bridge? Are you in the business of insulting the religious and the elderly? Exactly, where are you coming from? I am 83 and I assure you, I am very capable in mind and body. Have people like you checked into the pedophilia amongst the public school system, or with the boy scouts or amongst the Protestant religion, or amongst the Jewish and Islamic religion? (and their so-called ‘cover-ups’—whatever word they use) NO, the Catholic church is always and has always been fair game and now the lawyers, the media and the movie industry are making even more money on the Catholic Church. I am not making any excuses for the pedophilia in this world of ours, I would like the media to be more fair about it and not use just the Catholic Church to fill their pockets. You would do more in stopping this pedophilia abuse in our country and in the world, if you delved into other places (as stated above) ALONG with the Catholic church.
Deceptive intelligence
‘Confidential,’ Not ‘Secret’
It still means Justice has to be SEEN, to be done.
Obviously this webste does not want comments. I had a good response going and suddenly the page refreshed and wiped out my response. To any future posters, type out your response in a text processing program first and then copy and paste into the comment box ... and quickly submit.
To the webmaster, turn off the page refresh. I have never experienced that tactic on any other blog/comment board.
How are people overreacting, When the church refuses to deal with some of the abuse what happened, The selling of babies, The slavery of women and children, Do not forget the Pope has thrown people out of the church, Not for abusing children , But because they wanted the church to be accountable
Fr. Brundage says, “First and foremost to protect the victims. People accuse the Catholic Church of being “secretive,” in some sort of conspiratorial way. This is not true. The things that Father Murphy’s victims told us were so sensitive that if they had been made known, the person would have been victimized twice. If we had laicized Father Murphy, that would have been made known.There would have been an announcement that he had been laicized after having been found guilty of the crime of sexual abuse of a minor.”
That is the problem. The hierarchy still does not get it! The victims didn’t need protection. They needed to be respected as humans who had been attacked by a religious authority! They needed to know that they counted! They needed to know that they were not the ones who were wrong!
It has been oft-mentioned that the civil authorities dropped this case in the 1970s. I wonder whether that case was investigated with the Church’s assistance or opposition - before it was dropped?
No one seems to talk about that!
Leslie Hittner, it’s obvious you don’t get it. Yes, the victims did need protection. You are correct that they “need to be respected as humans who had been attacked by a religious authority,” but that’s exactly what Father Brundage was doing! Part of his job was collecting the testimony these people gave for the trial. If I’m not mistaken, that seems to indicate respect for their humanity and as well as the fact that they weren’t wrong. The constant barrage of statement after statement wore on him and he has said elsewhere that those three years were the toughest of his priesthood.
As to the case being dropped by civil authorities, the Church had nothing to do with their decision to drop it. They decided to drop it after they determined that the statute of limitations had been surpassed. At least, that’s the way the Journal Sentinel rather lamely reports the story.
Sometimes I wonder why so many feel they need to use these com boxes to vent, verbally abuse, and pass judgment that only pertains to God on those who are sincerely giving their lives in service of God, the Church and us. I am shocked at some of the posts here, especially that of GWK123, yet grateful for those who take the time to give a balanced, point by point answer.
I also wonder why we as Catholics don’t try to unite more and live Christian charity, and leave the division-causing, slander, and emotionally compromised-personal opinion verbal upchucks to those who actually want to destroy the Church. We are all pained and sorrowful for the many victims and want justice for the perpetrators, but why do so many try to cause division from their desktop?
Thank you, Fr Brundage, for your live of self-giving and dedication. I know that being a judicial vicar is not an easy task, yet rest assured of my prayers for you and your priesthood. We need many more priests like you who give their lives in service and love, regardless of what others may say.
Thomas,
From 1950-1974, the Church did nothing! From 1974 until 1996 the Church did nothing! Indeed, the Church hierarchy “protected” the victims. Only in 1996, when the perpetrator was failing and after a possible violation of confessional rules came to light, did the Church begin to take action. It seems that a violation of the secrecy of the confessional trumped all of those concerns for the victims, that Fr. Brundage speaks about. With all of the other evidence in my Diocese and others and after seeing how those who participated in the coverups continue to be rewarded (Read Cardinal Law), I’m not buying it.
Leslie,
I don’t get it. What aren’t you buying? I said plainly in my first post that three successive archbishops failed to do anything about Murphy until the end of Murphy’s life. Father Brundage had nothing to do with that. When Murphy was sent to his parent’s home in the hinterlands of the Superior Diocese in 1974, Father Brundage was a child of 12-years-old. He got put into this thing because of the obedience he lawfully owed his superior, Archbishop Weakland. He faithfully carried out his duties as judicial vicar and chief judge in this case and listened to the testimony of Murphy’s victims for a couple of years. He has stated a couple of times in different places that this testimony tore his heart out.
And just so we’re clear, the fact that Murphy had violated the confessional wasn’t news in 1996. This was already known as is clear from the documents that the New York Times posted, particularly the psychologist’s assessment from 1993. So there were some other motivations for Weakland’s move three years later to ask Rome what to do—and they were legal and financial. The ones who delayed this are the archbishops, most especially Weakland.
As I keep repeating, Father Brundage had nothing to do with any cover-up at all. Those of you who insist on verbally beating him up had better come up with some real proof that he was part of the problem.
In fact, while he does not mention it here, Father Brundage has put his life literally on the line for the protection of children. He reported a man in one of his parishes in Alaska for beating on his children and wife. The man was arrested and later Father Brundage got a phone call with only one sound—a rifle bolt. Police were even able to identify the type of gun it was. Until you are able to say the same thing, don’t go throwing accusations around.
Fr. Brundage appears to be a sincere man…but the illusion is still alive in his comments. the illusion that these degenerate actions by some(very few)of our priests should be tried in canon courts. They are very serious criminal actions and, so very plainly now, belong in the criminal court system replete with prisons. Society pays the price for the offenses against these victims…their anger, their stagnation in psychological and emotional growth and perhaps even their repitition of this crime against others in society. In the case of the degenerate Murphy he retained his title and ran the clock out for full criminal charges…so where is there anyhting close to justice for the victims other thanthedrainage of the collection baskets to pay for their deserved
rewards. the faithful pay the price for this illusion.
OK, Anthony, you obviously didn’t read the piece and don’t know the background. Father Brundage couldn’t do anything about the civil authorities, could he? As I stated earlier, the civil authorities were notified in the 1970’s and failed to act and the fact that Murphy ran the clock out on the civil law isn’t Father Brundage’s fault.
The idea that these cases should not be tried in canonical courts is ludicrous. These priests violated the sacred vows they took and the Church should hold them accountable for their actions when they so clearly and grossly violated those vows.
And if you think that it’s a matter of either/or, you’re wrong. These guys should get both the civil and canonical treatment. Their actions clearly violate the law in both realms and they should be tried and prosecuted to the fullest extent both sets of laws allow.
However, one must remember the last canon in the Code of Canon Law—“the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church.” No matter how grievous, the Church and her Lord want everyone to come to salvation, including the Father Murphy’s of the world.
Again, Fr. Brundage said, “First and foremost to protect the victims. People accuse the Catholic Church of being “secretive,” in some sort of conspiratorial way. This is not true. The things that Father Murphy’s victims told us were so sensitive that if they had been made known, the person would have been victimized twice. If we had laicized Father Murphy, that would have been made known.There would have been an announcement that he had been laicized after having been found guilty of the crime of sexual abuse of a minor.” He obviously believes he is supporting a correct course of action. I don’t.
This is depressing. The issue with Father Brundage is that when the Times revived the story, he lied to defend the Pope. He stated with absolute certainty that the trial had not been stopped. Maybe he did forget writing the letter that proves that he knew Ratzinger’s office had ordered the trial stop in response to Murphy’s pleas for mercy. But the belligerent indignance he displayed regarding the Times article—none of the facts of which has been disproved in any way, by the way—is dishonest in itself. Brundage is acting exactly the way Murphy’s bishops did—he is allowing injustice to prevail in order to benefit his employer. This is proof that many clergy are still putting the reputation of the church above the truth. The fundamental lesson of the abuse crisis has yet to be learned.
Stace,
You obviously didn’t read anything I’ve posted about this. To say that Father Brundage “lied to defend the Pope” is calumny of the highest order and could be considered libelous. He did not lie. Read my first post. As to the trial being halted, Father Brundage does not in fact recall writing the memo and in fact there is no decree of abatement in the documents that the NY Times posted, and that would need to be present to show that the trial had in fact been halted. Yet even in its absence, the memo that is there shows that Weakland abandoned a trial in order to apply administrative penalties—36 years too late and a mere two days before Murphy’s death.
And yes, the “facts” of the Times article have been disproved. Ratzinger had nothing to do with the Murphy case. Bertone was the one who handled it, not Ratzinger. But it really has nothing to do with these two men. They were given a case some 30+ years after it started and you expect them to wave some magic wand and make everything better? Instead, it has everything to do with the archbishops of Milwaukee who did nothing from the time they knew of Murphy’s crimes back in the 1950’s and everything to do with the civil authorities who are also guilty of inaction.
Again, you libel Father Brundage when you claim “he is allowing injustice to prevail in order to benefit his employer.” If you’re going to make that accusation, back it up. Show us proof. Exactly how did he allow “injustice to prevail in order to benefit his employer”? List the points here so everyone can see them and make rebuttals. Until you can do that, you owe at least an apology to Father Brundage.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.