NYTimes never talked to Fr. Murphy judge

[Rascalking]

Those in the hierarchy who trying to defend the Catholic church are making two major errors.

1) They are trying to shoot the messenger. The worst of these is Bill Donohue in his YouTube clips insulting the victims of the horrendous scandals in Ireland. But others have tried to compromise other major players in these cases. One is Archbishop Weakland, (who was ultimately involved in his own scandal). BUT this has nothing to do with Weakland’s repeated attempts to get Cardinal Ratzinger to take seriously the case against Fr. Murphy in Milwaukee. Others are trying to denigrate the New York Times articles, which are based on well-documented research.

**2) They are denying responsibility at the highest levels. ** They are refusing to take ownership for the scandals. Although the current pope and others have initiated many reforms to prevent recurrence of the scandals, the point remains that both the Munich scandal and the failure of Murphy’s trial in Wisconsin took place on Ratzinger’s watch. In Germany, Fr. Hullerman, who was chased out of Essen for abuses, escaped into the Munich archdiocese, despite vociferous warnings by his psychiatrist. IF Archbishop Ratzinger was not interested in pastoral matters, as was widely perceived, he should have appointed reliable underlings who could be counted on to keep him in the loop. Apparently he didn’t. He was very ill-served by Gruber, Fahr and others, but the fact remains that Ratzinger remains responsible. If he didn’t know about Hullerman, he should have.

As head of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger was also ill-served by his secretary, Bertone, when the Murphy case came up. Bertone must have known two things: Murphy was a heinous pedophile, criminally ignored by the Milwaukee archdiocese, and he was old–time was running out. But *someone *ignored Weakland’s letters for months, finally responding only after intercession by another department, and another letter from Weakland, and continued to stall. Finally Bertone suggests a ‘pastoral’ solution, rejected by Murphy’s bishop --and then Murphy dies. Bertone is now Secretary of State under the pope—which probably indicates that Ratzinger thinks he is effective—and therefore, he spoke for the Cardinal during the Murphy case. Again the buck stops with Benedict, but he refuses to recognize and apologize for his lack of oversight in both cases–referring to them as “petty gossip”. All he has to do is acknowledge that he, the man in charge, is ultimately responsible in both cases.

Anode, that was brilliantly said. Unbelievable.

Bill Donohue is a fool. I can’t stand him. I cringe when the media runs to him as the one to get comments from for Catholic issues. I probably agree with him on some issues, but he still drives me crazy…

 

[anode]

Fr Brundage wrote in his article.

Are you accusing Fr Brundage of telling unthruths?

Source:catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601

Either that or ‘misremembering’. These documents are photocopies of legible notes taking during a long meeting. There are three pages photocopied, and at the head of each page is written the name, Fr. Tom Brundage. The pages are numbered. The notes clearly indicate that they were written by someone familiar with the case and with canon law. Why should these notes be forged? As you say, the NYT didn’t even interview him, so why should someone try to forge notes? These documents, by the way, were obtained by the lawyers representing the deaf men in their suits. The NYT obtained them from the lawyers. Those cases are long closed–only one was settled and that for $2000., a pitiful sum.

I am writing regarding this because the case against Milwaukee and the Congregation is a strong one, 90% of the blame going to Milwaukee, and 10% to the Congregation, but that 10% is crucial, in that the Congregation gave Milwaukee such a runaround, that Murphy was escape a trial, died, and was buried as a priest.

The story of the abuse, Milwaukee’s stalling, those documents and the Congregation’s stalling are a matter of public record. You can run but you can’t hide.

 

[curlycool89]

Either that or ‘misremembering’. These documents are photocopies of legible notes taking during a long meeting. There are three pages photocopied, and at the head of each page is written the name, Fr. Tom Brundage. The pages are numbered. The notes clearly indicate that they were written by someone familiar with the case and with canon law. Why should these notes be forged? As you say, the NYT didn’t even interview him, so why should someone try to forge notes? These documents, by the way, were obtained by the lawyers representing the deaf men in their suits. The NYT obtained them from the lawyers. Those cases are long closed–only one was settled and that for $2000., a pitiful sum.

I am writing regarding this because the case against Milwaukee and the Congregation is a strong one, 90% of the blame going to Milwaukee, and 10% to the Congregation, but that 10% is crucial, in that the Congregation gave Milwaukee such a runaround, that Murphy was escape a trial, died, and was buried as a priest.

The story of the abuse, Milwaukee’s stalling, those documents and the Congregation’s stalling are a matter of public record. You can run but you can’t hide.

You’ve pretty much proved that your intent is to slander the Church at all costs at this point.

How dare you accuse Fr. Brundage of lying. Who are you to be judge, jury, and executioner while denying the man every protection and due process he is deserving of under the law? You’ve gone off the deep end from worshiping the NYT to outright slander and defamation against a man who has done no wrong and who is a priest, a lawyer, and a judge.

 

[goforgoal]

Sorry for bringing up an old thread.

Last week, my Auntie was discussing this and that she watched a documentary on this and that Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy shouldn’t be buried with or like a Priest.

I told her that the media and documentaries can be very biased and I thought this was already taken care of.

Yes, it is wrong for Priests, Brothers, Sisters, Nuns, etc. to abuse children in anyway.

It is wrong for any man or woman to abuse anybody in anyway.