The Pope and the Murphy case: what the New York Times story didn't tell you

[timotheos]

*Women were also permitted to be beaten behind closed doors once upon a time, and there were no laws protecting them against the violence of their husbands. Thank goodness, we have evolved. Your post makes me very sad that you think some of us are ‘‘sensitive’’ to the nature of these ‘‘heinous’’ crimes. We all should be sensitive to them. *

You misunderstand me, and my use of the word “sensitive”. Your analogy is appropriate, and thank goodness we have evolved. My only question is, is our outrage connected in any way to our culture? If pursuit of sex is so great, why are we not downplaying this pedophile behavior in the name of sexual freedom? The answer, I believe, is that we feel more guilty than ever about what we promote.

Make no mistake about it, I know this pedophilia thing, just like domestic abuse, is very, very bad. I can commit mortal sins just thinking about what I would like to do to these perpetrators.

-Tim

 

[whatevergirl]

You misunderstand me, and my use of the word “sensitive”. Your analogy is appropriate, and thank goodness we have evolved. My only question is, is our outrage connected in any way to our culture? If pursuit of sex is so great, why are we not downplaying this pedophile behavior in the name of sexual freedom? The answer, I believe, is that we feel more guilty than ever about what we promote.

Make no mistake about it, I know this pedophilia thing, just like domestic abuse, is very, very bad. I can commit mortal sins just thinking about what I would like to do to these perpetrators.

-Tim

Oh, I see what you’re saying now…forgive me if I snapped. Your point actually could be fleshed out into a thesis…it’s a very unique perspective.

 

[Sonic]

Everyone! Please read through all the actual documentation cited as evidence.

You can find it here…

documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case?ref=us#document/p1

I just finished reading through the documentation. Here’s some things I noticed.

1. It seems the Vatican was not informed of the full scope of the case. The full details seemed to have remained within the Diocese procedure. The Vatican was only told that Fr. Murphy was being brought up on charges of “Solicitation in the Confessional”. They were not told that actual physical sexual conduct took place. In fact, the only mention of sexual molestation appears in a document from the Diocese to Fr. Murphy informing him of the charges against him.
2. The Vatican was eager to continue the process against Fr. Murphy, but were not sure if the Civil Authorities would prosecute and succeed in proving Fr. Murphy’s guilt in the U.S. court system.
3. Father Murphy died while the process to bring him to trial was occurring. The case was closed because he died.
4. Vatican officials seem to have come to the conclusion that Fr. Murphy was not in complete control of his faculties and did not understand the gravity of his actions concerning “solicitation in the confessional”. The notes also mention he was not remorseful of his conduct. There is no mention of any other behavior beyond “solicitation in the confessional” in the notes from the administrative meeting to discuss the case.
5. The social worker, hired by the Diocese, speculated that Fr. Murphy may have molested 200 adolescents between the ages of 15 and 22. The Diocese investigation surmised a possible 100. The documents mention three case from which the investigation and litigation was being done on their behalf. This information seems to have stayed within the Diocese.
6. The documents reveal that the Diocese was writing for permission to proceed with the ecclesiastical trial against Fr. Murphy.
7. Also, the documents seem to suggest that Cardinal Ratzinger involvement with the process seem administratively minimal. Most of the Vatican documents (and there aren’t that many) are from officials underneath the Cardinal.

That’s all I’ve got so far. All I can say is please read the actual documents. Don’t just take my word for it.

Print them all out and save them, because they may disappear and be needed to cross examine future news articles.

I’m only providing information and my observations. Don’t hang me for it, please.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Right.

Blame Society.

Blame Satan.

Blame the Media.

Blame everyone except those who are directly and indirectly responsible for these tragedies.

I find the word “indirectly” there quite insensible: might not God himself perhaps be included under that ambit?

In any case, assigning blame to someone who has not been shown to have acted in bad faith is also another scandalous and terrible tragedy. Yes, poor judgements must be corrected, predators must not be allowed to be admitted into the Holy Priesthood ever again, measures must be put in place to ensure that such misdeeds are not allowed to fester in the Church again, and we must also never despair of God’s mercy, even for the worst sinners.

“Let him who is without sin be the first to cast a stone at her.” Besides looking for people to blame, it might perhaps be better for each member of the Body of Christ to first examine himself carefully so that he is not a cause of scandal to others (whether society finds unpalatable, e.g. sexual abuse of minors, or those which society condones, e.g. abortion, pornography, etc).

 

[lemonbeam]

Right.

Blame Society.

Blame Satan.

Blame the Media.

Blame everyone except those who are directly and indirectly responsible for these tragedies.

The pope is innocent of any wrong doing. Every attempted smear story they throw at him falls short. All you have to do is read the details. For example; in Munich we’re talking about one case, wherein somebody beneath him transferred an accused priest without his knowledge or consent. Then in the case of Milwaukee, again we are talking about one accused priest, who could not be prosecuted by civil authorities and the charges were dropped. Then while the Archbishop was the one and only man who could have done anything, he decided to punt the case to the Vatican instead, where it was delayed for months. Finally, when a response was given, it was given not by Cardinal Ratzinger (currently Pope Benedict XVI), but by somebody completely different, recommending the trial be canceled since the accused priest was dying. He died four months later. Once again, the responsibility lay at the Archbishop of Milwaukee’s feet, because he alone was the only one who had evidence to defrock the accused priest, and yet he tried to pass the buck instead.

That’s it! That’s all the liberal mainstream media has! That is their whole case! Yet with that, they are trying to implicate the pope in some sort of trial by newspaper in which they alone play the judge, jury and executioner.

Since the mainstream news media refuses to do their jobs, let us in the blogosphere once again do it for them. Here are the facts…

FACT #1
The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that sexual abuse of minors is a damnable sin, of the worst kind, in which Jesus Christ himself said it would be better for someone who does this to tie a millstone around his neck and be thrown into the deepest part of the sea. Catholics involved in sexual abuse have not only failed in morality, but they have also failed in Catholicism, in that they are not practicing the Catholic Christian faith at all.

FACT #2
The total number of all priests accused of sexual abuse of minors is less than 5% of all Catholic clergy. That means more than 95% of Catholic clergy have never been accused and are doing their jobs correctly, living quiet and holy lives in service to their parishes.

FACT #3
In spite of what people say about clerical celibacy being a “cause” of these problems, actual statistics indicate that the majority of sex-abuse of minors is perpetrated by married men; step-fathers, uncles, cousins and live-in boyfriends. Statistically speaking, being a celibate man in the Catholic priesthood actually REDUCES your odds of sexually abusing minors. That’s just a matter of statistical FACT.

FACT #4
In the overwhelming vast majority of cases where sexual abuse was reported in the Catholic Church, the alleged victim was a male between the ages of 12 and 18. Victims younger than 12 were almost never reported, and sexual abuse of females was also rare. This is not the clinical definition of pedophilia. It is however a type of predatory homosexuality that seeks to take advantage of underage young men. Therefore the term “pedophile priests” is a misnomer and not based on hard statistical data. A more accurate term should be “predatory homosexual priests.”

FACT #5
Homosexual men are not allowed to become priests in the Catholic Church. In order for a homosexual to become a priest he must lie about his homosexuality just to get into seminary and remain “in the closet” indefinitely. If he is ever discovered to be gay, he would be fired and laicized (defrocked).

FACT #6
Sexual abuse of minors is slightly higher in Protestant churches according to data released by insurance agencies that underwrite them.

FACT #7
Sexual abuse of minors is significantly higher in non-religious institutions that deal with children, particularly public schools, where according to a U.S. government report, a child is literally over 100 times more likely to be molested in a public school than in a Catholic church.

FACT #8
The reforms implemented in the US Catholic Church after the sex-abuse scandal of 2002-2003 have been hailed by child protective services as the most comprehensive ever seen in a public institution and have been cited as a model for other institutions to follow.

catholicknight.blogspot.com/2010/03/pope-to-be-crucified-this-easter.html

 

[peregrinus_sg]

The Vatican should have seen that Milwaukee had dropped the ball, that there was a massive cover-up and it was time to rectify this with an investigation, even after Murphy died. Not a formal trial–the perp was dead. But Rome could have interviewed the survivors, determined the nature and extent of the crimes and made some effort to make restitution to the victims. The fact that Murphy was old and dying gave Rome a very convenient excuse to drop everything.

The fact that the civil case was dropped is irrelevant.

I find the apparently massive efforts to defend the Vatican and Cardinal Ratzinger to be pathetic.

I don’t understand why it should be the Vatican that should be doing all these (wonderful) things post-Father Murphy’s death, since the late priest was incardinated in the US diocese? Is this part of a subtle assignment of blame to the person of the Holy Father?

The civil case was perhaps irrelevant as to the canonical measures, but surely people who are interested in ensuring that such misdeeds do not repeat would be interested to find out why civil leaders didn’t do anything, and how that could be prevented.

Old age and ill-health are good considerations for considering not holding a canonical trial, if the accused, who is dying, has already admitted to his crimes and penalties are assigned so that he lives the rest of his remaining days as one of penance and is prevented from further misdeeds. I hope of course Archbishop Weakland communicated the penalties imposed on the priest to the victims. A canonical trial has very different intent from a civil trial, and I’m really not certain what tangible benefits there will by defrocking the already-dying priest.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Precisely because they are NOT the Holy Father. Neither are they, in most cases Christ’s disciples, nor members of His body.

As a fallen away Protestant who was being stirred again to faith by the Holy Spirit around the time the priest scandals were moving into high gear in the US, I was struck by the thought…“Why is the Catholic Church suffering this great attack?”

I think amid the pain and confusion and messiness of all that surrounds the scandals, legitimate and otherwise (damage is done in either case), it is paramount that the people of God recognize this whole thing for what it is…an unadulterated, no holds barred, attack on Christ’s own Church.

Render the shepherds helpless and attack the sheep at will.

Someone, somewhere is laughing at us, as we churn in our false sense of indignation, point fingers are one another, forsake mercy and forgiveness, and allow ourselves to get caught up in the secular media’s feeding frenzy.

Well said. I had a similar experience watching the Media attack the Church when I was an atheist. It had an uncanny resemblance to what my protestant sunday school teachers said was supposed to happen to Christ’s church, except it was happening to the Catholics instead of my parent’s church. And that’s when the thought struck me.

 

[feargalmac]

From Zenit.org

zenit.org/article-28750?l=english

It noted that on Jan. 6, 1998, Father Murphy himself wrote a letter to the Vatican congregation stating that the peremptory time period had elapsed, and requesting an exception from the case being heard.

However, the archdiocesan tribunal reported that the Vatican congregation responded to Father Murphy with an April 6, 1998, letter asserting that there are no set time periods for cases of solicitation, and refusing the request for exception.

I haven’t seen this mentioned anywhere.

 

[RSD]

There are two elements that occur to me as being of importance in this discussion, which I have not seen that anyone else has mentioned. The first is that for most of history, until very recently, victims of such sins were unwilling to come forward and provide evidence. And for good reason- the victims were often treated by civil authorities as criminals themselves- they made it up, or they enticed the abuser, or they co-operated willingly and then later tried to turn on the their abuser. All of which are things that do actually happen sometimes, but as recently as 20 years ago, perhaps even more recently, that was the basic position of all civil law enforcement. I can’t imagine that a bishop could deprive a man of his livelihood and all reputation without a single actual witness against him, and I think it quite likely that no one would publicly testify.

The other important element is that our society now at one and the same time views sexual abuse of children as a grave sin (one of the very few, right along with cigarette smoking and high cholesterol) and an uncontrollable mental illness. I think (this is speculation, not something I have heard from a bishop) that if a bishop became aware of this grave sin through the sacramental confession of a priest under his authority he would be OBLIGED to consider that the man was intending to improve, and with the grace of the sacrament would improve his behavior. We really do not know if there were any priests who committed this sin, confessed, atoned, and continued their ministry blamelessly. In other words, this whole discussion leaves out the fact that the church is involved in forgiveness.

 

[aj10]

The Vatican should have seen that Milwaukee had dropped the ball, that there was a massive cover-up and it was time to rectify this with an investigation, even after Murphy died. Not a formal trial–the perp was dead. But Rome could have interviewed the survivors, determined the nature and extent of the crimes and made some effort to make restitution to the victims. The fact that Murphy was old and dying gave Rome a very convenient excuse to drop everything…
I find the apparently massive efforts to defend the Vatican and Cardinal Ratzinger to be pathetic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/quote.gif​

Dear Anode,
I agree with you. The New York Times, London Times, and Der Spiegel would like nothing more than to bring down the church, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t expose wrong-doing. The U.S. sex scandal came to light, not by the Church, but by the secular press. American Catholics in the pews had written letters, sent videos and complained to their bishops and the Vatican about this evil and were told “Trust us.” Apparently only the secular press has the power to bring this darkness into the light of day. Even though our accusers hate us and spin the data, they are ultimately doing us a favor.
The Church heirarchy wants to walk through this muddy sex abuse scandal with clean robes, and I don’t think it can be done. They need to roll up their sleeves, get dirty and clean house for the sake of all Catholic children past, present and future.

 

[TedDC]

I do not know why police chiefs, mayors and governors from this time period are not getting the same kind of grief that our Holy Father is.

You’re right - but not, I think, in the way you intended. The difference is that those police chiefs, mayors and governors do not claim to represent Christ on earth, to have the authority to require obedience under pain of eternal damnation, and to have the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit.

How does it go…“From whom more is given, more is expected”…something like that?

 

[lemonbeam]

The Vatican should have seen that Milwaukee had dropped the ball, that there was a massive cover-up and it was time to rectify this with an investigation, even after Murphy died. Not a formal trial–the perp was dead. But Rome could have interviewed the survivors, determined the nature and extent of the crimes and made some effort to make restitution to the victims. The fact that Murphy was old and dying gave Rome a very convenient excuse to drop everything…
I find the apparently massive efforts to defend the Vatican and Cardinal Ratzinger to be pathetic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/quote.gif​

Dear Anode,
I agree with you. The New York Times, London Times, and Der Spiegel would like nothing more than to bring down the church, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t expose wrong-doing. The U.S. sex scandal came to light, not by the Church, but by the secular press. American Catholics in the pews had written letters, sent videos and complained to their bishops and the Vatican about this evil and were told “Trust us.” Apparently only the secular press has the power to bring this darkness into the light of day. Even though our accusers hate us and spin the data, they are ultimately doing us a favor.
The Church heirarchy wants to walk through this muddy sex abuse scandal with clean robes, and I don’t think it can be done. They need to roll up their sleeves, get dirty and clean house for the sake of all Catholic children past, present and future.

We don’t defend cover ups. There just seems to have been a collective failure on the part of everyone. They should of all known better. Not just the Archdiocese of Milwaukee at the time, but the Vatican hen they found years later? But could they do, Fr Murphy was dying? What should they of done?

The Vatican said the case only reached the Vatican in 1996, that Murphy died two years later, and that there was nothing in the church’s handling of the matter that precluded any civil action from being taken against him.

I would like the Church’s detractors to pay attention here, because in this paragraph, Fr. de Souza explains why such things were allowed to go on:

In the 1960s, like much of society and after the Second Vatican Council, the Church simply abandoned her disciplinary life. Doctrinal dissent was not corrected, but often celebrated. Liturgical abuses, both minor and outrageously sacrilegious, were tolerated. Bishops simply stopped inquiring into priestly asceticism, prayer and holiness of life. Non-Catholics often have an image of the Catholic Church as a ruthlessly efficient organization with a chain of command that would make the armed forces jealous. The reality for most of the 1960s to 1980s was the opposite. A priest could preach heresy, profane the Holy Mass, destroy the piety of his people and face no consequences. The overseers decided to overlook everything. It is any surprise, then, that when accusations of criminal immorality emerged they too were dealt with inadequately, if at all?

Pope Benedict, in his bluntly-worded letter to Irish Catholics last week wrote that the bishops “failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law to the crime of child abuse.” Too many bishops weren’t Catholic enough. They failed, for example, to follow the clear direction of the 1983 Code of Canon Law that a cleric who commits sexual sin with a minor “is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.”

A culture of laxity had so infected bishops that their disciplinary muscles had severely atrophied. It was not as if they were vigilant rulers in all aspects, but perversely indulgent of sexual abuse. Indulgence was shown to abuses of all kinds. So latitudinarian had the clerical culture become that even modest attempts at doctrinal discipline were widely mocked — or do we forget that the progressive press, inside and outside the Church, calling Joseph Ratzinger “God’s Rottweiler”?

Fr. De Souza seems to imply that lax period ended in the 1980s. No Father, it is still very much with us.

It is my hope that as the hierarchy is spanked on this-- albeit, at times, unfairly-- that it slaps some sense into the heads of the Church elites and makes them realize that canon laws are there for a reason. The Church is not a big campfire where we sing “Kumbaya” and feel good about each other.

The sex abuse scandal and the Development and Peace scandal have the same roots: a cavalier attitude towards church laws and divine revelation.

bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2010/03/fr-raymond-de-souza-on-sex-abuse.html

 

[dixieagle]

Why is the media not bringing up the fact that Pope Benedict has done more than anybody to create reforms in the Church! There are so many stringent protocols, and child protection systems in place now!

Reforms: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=440812

I think that, among other reasons, because most of the horses had LONG since left the barn by the time anything was done; it was a classic case of far too little, far too late.

Also, because those who hate the Church (and there ARE many) had been handed ammunition on a silver platter by those who were far more interested in circling the wagons than in discovering the truth and remedying the problems.

When a Church believes it is indeed the One True Church, headed by Christ’s representative on earth and successor to St. Peter, with a clergy acting “in persona Christi”, and preaching that a chaste life is expected of us all…then you had better live up to your own high standards. Clearly, this was, in all too many instances, not the case.

 

[TedDC]

I think that, among other reasons, because most of the horses had LONG since left the barn by the time anything was done; it was a classic case of far too little, far too late.

Also, because those who hate the Church (and there ARE many) had been handed ammunition on a silver platter by those who were far more interested in circling the wagons than in discovering the truth and remedying the problems.

When a Church believes it is indeed the One True Church, headed by Christ’s representative on earth and successor to St. Peter, with a clergy acting “in persona Christi”, and preaching that a chaste life is expected of us all…then you had better live up to your own high standards. Clearly, this was, in all too many instances, not the case.

Yup, that’s it in a nutshell.

 

[miguel]

I am scratching my head over the idea of needing Vatican intervention to do anything. Doesn’t the Bishop have the power to take action? He can’t defrock a priest, but he should certainly be able to control what a Priest does, where he serves, who he has contact with. Or am I wrong? If I would have been Murphy’s Bishop, I would have put him in a room down the hall from my office, counting beans, if that’s what it took to monitor him. And then I would have told him that one misstep and he would be in front of the DA.

This is an aspect of all these abuse revelations that thoroughly puzzles me. Perhaps someone can explain why the Bishops all appear to be so powerless.

They’re not powerless. And either is the parent who thinks his child was abused to simply call the cops.

 

[chaunceygardner]

They’re not powerless. And either is the parent who thinks his child was abused to simply call the cops.

I suggest you read the reports that detail what happened. When children told their parents the parents sometimes went to another Priest, but it ended there. The other Priest often did nothing. When it was reported to the police and they investigated, they believed the Priest and his Bishop over the words of a confused and fearful child. And even when it was acted on, that usually meant referring it back to the diocese, and they just moved the offending Priest to another location where he could start all over.

I am aware of a county where the DA was Catholic and NEVER prosecuted a case brought against a priest for abuse. He eventually took a lot of heat for this and resigned. The Church protects “its own” but NOT its innocent children.

 

[maryj]

I suggest you read the reports that detail what happened. When children told their parents the parents sometimes went to another Priest, but it ended there. The other Priest often did nothing. When it was reported to the police and they investigated, they believed the Priest and his Bishop over the words of a confused and fearful child. And even when it was acted on, that usually meant referring it back to the diocese, and they just moved the offending Priest to another location where he could start all over.

I am aware of a county where the DA was Catholic and NEVER prosecuted a case brought against a priest for abuse. He eventually took a lot of heat for this and resigned. The Church protects “its own” but NOT its innocent children.

Holy cow, how’s that for a blanket statement. I’m going to assume you really didn’t think about that before you typed it.

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion
Have Mercy on us and on the whole world.

 

[lemonbeam]

I suggest you read the reports that detail what happened. When children told their parents the parents sometimes went to another Priest, but it ended there. The other Priest often did nothing. When it was reported to the police and they investigated, they believed the Priest and his Bishop over the words of a confused and fearful child. And even when it was acted on, that usually meant referring it back to the diocese, and they just moved the offending Priest to another location where he could start all over.

I am aware of a county where the DA was Catholic and NEVER prosecuted a case brought against a priest for abuse. He eventually took a lot of heat for this and resigned. The Church protects “its own” but NOT its innocent children.

In 1994, the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse issued guidelines to the nation’s then 191 dioceses to help them develop policies to deal with the problem of sexual abuse of minors. Almost all dioceses responded and developed their own policies (USCCB document: Guidelines for dealing with Child Sexual Abuse, 1993-1994). By this time, pedophilia was recognized as a disorder that could not be cured, and a problem that was becoming more prevalent due to the increase of pornography. Before 1994, bishops took their cue from experts in the psychiatric profession who believed pedophilia could be successfully treated. Priests guilty of sexual abuse were sent to one of several treatment facilities across the United States. Bishops often relied upon the judgments of experts in determining whether priests were fit for ministry. This doesn’t mitigate the negligence on the part of some in the hierarchy, but it does offer some insight.

 

[timotheos]

Fr. De Souza seems to imply that lax period ended in the 1980s. No Father, it is still very much with us.

It is my hope that as the hierarchy is spanked on this-- albeit, at times, unfairly-- that it slaps some sense into the heads of the Church elites and makes them realize that canon laws are there for a reason. The Church is not a big campfire where we sing “Kumbaya” and feel good about each other.

The sex abuse scandal and the Development and Peace scandal have the same roots: a cavalier attitude towards church laws and divine revelation.

bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2010/03/fr-raymond-de-souza-on-sex-abuse.html

lemonbeam, you have summed up all of my feelings about the Church in the '60s and '70s. Man, was our parish and school trying so hard to be cool and part of the hip world then! I can only surmise that I was chosen to be a kid during this time so that I would be completely repulsed by it, and then later do a little something to help support a return of the Church to its authentic roots.

 

[lemonbeam]

lemonbeam, you have summed up all of my feelings about the Church in the '60s and '70s. Man, was our parish and school trying so hard to be cool and part of the hip world then! I can only surmise that I was chosen to be a kid during this time so that I would be completely repulsed by it, and then later do a little something to help support a return of the Church to its authentic roots.

Thank ‘‘Blue wave Canada’’ who wrote it.