So things proceed with the potential church trial of Murphy until January 1998. The case then gets transferred to the Diocese of Superior, WI, in whose territory Murphy was residing. In this month, Fr. Murphy, the perpetrator, writes his own letter to the Congregation, the same congregation (pgs. 54-55), while deathly ill. He addressed it to Cardinal Ratzinger, and as you’d expect, Bishop Fliss of Superior (now handling the case) gets a reply from Bertone.
This is the crucial letter where people in the press want to find fault with Cardinal Ratzinger. The text of the Fr. Murphy letter itself has been distorted by the mainstream media quoting only a sound bite or two, but thanks again to the NYT’s putting the document online, you can read it for yourself and make your own judgments (pgs 57-58).
In the letter, Murphy asks the Congregation to declare the action of the diocese of Superior (to whom the case has been transferred) invalid because the statute of limitations had passed. The Congregation refuses to do so in Bertone’s reply. Note again that the congregation refused to invalidate the pending action of the diocese of Superior against Murphy. Therefore there is no ground of faulting Ratzinger here. Murphy also makes a mercy-based request to the Congregation not to be subjected to a trial at this point in his life. He writes:
“I am seventy-two years of age, your Eminence [Ratzinger], and I am in poor health. I have just recently suffered another stroke which has left me in a weakened state. I have followed all the directives of both Archbishop Cousins and now Archbishop Weakland. I have repented of any of my past transgressions, and have been living peaceably in northern Wisconsin for twenty-four years. I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood.” (pg. 55)
So when the response came from Archbishop Bertone, what did it say? It did not prohibit the church trial. It didn’t say that this couldn’t be done. But it did hint at another path, saying:
“[T]his Congregation invites Your Excellency [Raphael Michael Fliss of Superior, WI] to give careful consideration to what canon 1341 proposes as pastoral measures destined to obtain the reparation of scandal and the restoration of justice” (pg. 58). Here’s what Canon 1341 says: “An ordinary [bishop] is to take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender.”
So Bertone urges bishop Fliss to heed what the Church Law says regarding when to use a judicial process. Note that Bertone doesn’t say Fliss can’t or shouldn’t go forward with the trial, but he just says think about this canon and if there is another way to resolve the matter (pg. 68).
In May Fliss concluded that the scandal in the deaf community was such that the trial needed to go forward (pgs. 60, 62-67). At the very end of the same month, he and Weakland were in Rome for their ad limina (periodic) visit, and they had a meeting with Bertone about the Murphy case. Ratzinger was not present. Bertone again did not say that the trial could not proceed. He pointed out certain canonical and practical difficulties it would involve, but he did not prohibit it. He further recommended that Murphy be examined by three psychiatrists, that he be assigned a spiritual director to keep tabs on him, that he be prohibited from doing anything with the deaf community, and that he be allowed to celebrate Mass only with permission given in writing by both Weakland and Fliss. By August 1998, Murphy died.
Sorry for the long post. I feel that they have done a good job.
PS. These are parts of the Chaldean Church’s E-newsletter that was e-mailed to me. But they did not give me a link. Sorry.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
