Warned about abuse, Vatican failed to defrock priest [NYT]

[serrevin]

What are *you *saying? That the pope, if he’s found to be complicit, should be beyond the reach of this thing? If he played a part in covering up abuse, he *should *step down.

easy easy,
I wasn’t saying that, all I was saying is as an outsider (protestant) looking in, statements like that confuse me in the sense that I didn’t think a layperson has the right to make those pronoucnement/judgments about the head of the magesterium

that’s all.

 

[whatevergirl]

These journalists, sadly, are encouraged by members of the Church who hate the Pope. They hate him because he opposes their heretical version of Christianity.

Possibly, but you know what? We can’t keep blaming the media for writing facts. We are just so deeply wounded, shocked, and saddened as a Catholic people over this, that we end up lashing out at the media. It’s not the media’s fault, that these abuse cases are real.

 

[RobbyS]

I believe you need to separate the outrage from the facts. This is the second case that touches on Joseph Ratzinger. This, far more than the Munich case, calls into question his ability to deal with the new allegations coming from Ireland, Germany, Holland, Brazil and who knows what other country.

The Church is not, as you seem to believe, a political organization . The pope is not a monarch, and since Vatican II the national churches have proudly claimed autonomy from
the Curia. Liberals thought of Vatican II as a kind of liberation from Roman authority. The modernists in our Church who have taken over yours are furious with Pope Benedict as they were with John Paul II, for having frustrated their “reform” of the Church. They of course will not break with the papacy because they need it. They need it to impose their beliefs on the world-wide Church. But they will do what they can to discredit the present pope.

 

[spn82756]

The Church is not, as you seem to believe, a political organization . The pope is not a monarch, and since Vatican II the national churches have proudly claimed autonomy from
the Curia. Liberals thought of Vatican II as a kind of liberation from Roman authority. The modernists in our Church who have taken over yours are furious with Pope Benedict as they were with John Paul II, for having frustrated their “reform” of the Church. They of course will not break with the papacy because they need it. They need it to impose their beliefs on the world-wide Church. But they will do what they can to discredit the present pope.

What does this have to do with the local bishop wanting to have a trial for this priest and a cardinal at the Vatican turning it down? Actually not turning it down…but ordering them not to.

 

[lemonbeam]

**VATICAN STATEMENT ON THE “MURPHY CASE”
**
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 25, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The following is the full text of the statement given to the New York Times on Wednesday by Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office.

---

The tragic case of Father Lawrence Murphy, a priest of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, involved particularly vulnerable victims who suffered terribly from what he did. By sexually abusing children who were hearing-impaired, Father Murphy violated the law and, more importantly, the sacred trust that his victims had placed in him.

During the mid-1970s, some of Father Murphy’s victims reported his abuse to civil authorities, who investigated him at that time; however, according to news reports, that investigation was dropped. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was not informed of the matter until some twenty years later.

It has been suggested that a relationship exists between the application of Crimen sollicitationis and the non-reporting of child abuse to civil authorities in this case. In fact, there is no such relationship. Indeed, contrary to some statements that have circulated in the press, neither Crimen nor the Code of Canon Law ever prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities.

In the late 1990s, after over two decades had passed since the abuse had been reported to diocesan officials and the police, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was presented for the first time with the question of how to treat the Murphy case canonically. The Congregation was informed of the matter because it involved solicitation in the confessional, which is a violation of the Sacrament of Penance. It is important to note that the canonical question presented to the Congregation was unrelated to any potential civil or criminal proceedings against Father Murphy.

In such cases, the Code of Canon Law does not envision automatic penalties, but recommends that a judgment be made not excluding even the greatest ecclesiastical penalty of dismissal from the clerical state (cf. Canon 1395, no. 2). In light of the facts that Father Murphy was elderly and in very poor health, and that he was living in seclusion and no allegations of abuse had been reported in over 20 years, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested that the Archbishop of Milwaukee give consideration to addressing the situation by, for example, restricting Father Murphy’s public ministry and requiring that Father Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts. Father Murphy died approximately four months later, without further incident.

zenit.org/article-28746?l=english

 

[dixieagle]

Yes, I agree…I don’t know what else to say, I’m literally speechless… not what you said here, lol…just this whole entire thing. It has me ill. It has me especially sad for those who are good and pious priests who are honest as the day is long, and get a weird look from someone as they walk down the street. Praying that our beloved Church will never ever let this happen again, and if it does, those in authority will not permit it to go on.

I agree completely, WG. This whole thing - just when we have started to hope the worst has come out - just gets more and more disgusting and disheartening.

The code of silence - operative within law enforcement at the time, as well as the Church - has wreaked havoc and compounded terrible sins.

Thank God for the journalists who brought all this to light - Jason Barry, NY Times, all of them. I well know the price many have paid; my dh is a journalist who asked, on camera, hard questions of our archbishop about the case of a still-prominent priest who committed sexual “improprieties” with adult women. We have seen the priests’s deposition and ultimate confession; the deeds were fact. However, my dh was “disinvited” from a number of Catholic functions which he had emceed (as a volunteer, on his own time) for many years because this priest has such a following and is part of a powerful local Catholic family. So, don’t start on the “shoot the messenger” bit; if there was no disgusting betrayal of Christ’s “little ones”, the messengers wouldn’t have to report it.

That several bishops knew about this and moved him around instead or removing him is appalling. While I can, in some ways, understand then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s reluctance to cause distress to an old, ill man, I’m afraid that any distress he would have suffered pales in comparison to the horrible damage done to innocent, vulnerable children.

Shame on everyone involved.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

The church is a political organization, and it is one where politics play as important a role as in any other institution. It may have a divine charter, but it acts and operates like other human organizations. Whatever the baggage from Vatican II and whatever the liberals wanted, this matter affects the church.

I don’t think you can seriously argue that the church should be given a pass by the non-Catholic world. As you have certainly noticed, any pecadillo of any politician, is subject to ravenous attacks by the sharks of the press. The church is not above this scrutiny, and should not be. Bad things happen because of human frailty in administering the church. These matters do not affect the infallibility of the pope, if you believe in that, but they do damage the papacy’s reputation.

If the church wants to not be considered a political organization, it should start now to behave radically differently.

The Church is not, as you seem to believe, a political organization . The pope is not a monarch, and since Vatican II the national churches have proudly claimed autonomy from
the Curia. Liberals thought of Vatican II as a kind of liberation from Roman authority. The modernists in our Church who have taken over yours are furious with Pope Benedict as they were with John Paul II, for having frustrated their “reform” of the Church. They of course will not break with the papacy because they need it. They need it to impose their beliefs on the world-wide Church. But they will do what they can to discredit the present pope.

 

[RobbyS]

Possibly, but you know what? We can’t keep blaming the media for writing facts. We are just so deeply wounded, shocked, and saddened as a Catholic people over this, that we end up lashing out at the media. It’s not the media’s fault, that these abuse cases are real.

We can hate them for unbalanced reporting of the facts. The molestation of children is rampant in families and there is a much higher incidence of it in the public schools than in the Church. As a former teacher, and union leader, I can tell you that it happens all the time but until recently it was handled mainly by letting the alleged perp to go away. There are more than 10,000 school districts in the United States, so the expedient thing was to allow him to disappear. In such a decentralized situation, it was not uncommon for some school district to employ them with only a cursory check of his background. Ironically it was the priest crisis that has caused a tightening of procedures.

I am of course dismayed by the facts, but I attribute it to the demoralization of priests and nuns in the wake of liberal reforms after Vatican II. It was a big thing to be a priest in 1950 but not in 1975. Men who in 1950 would have been thrown out of the seminary were graduated and ordained in 1975, because of the shortage. I call it "
the hollowing out of the priesthood." Given that the Jay Jay reported that most of the abuse involved homosexual abuse of teenagers, an abuse always existent in the Church became more widespread. Clericalism takes many forms.

 

[whatevergirl]

We can hate them for unbalanced reporting of the facts. The molestation of children is rampant in families and there is a much higher incidence of it in the public schools than in the Church. As a former teacher, and union leader, I can tell you that it happens all the time but until recently it was handled mainly by letting the alleged perp to go away. There are more than 10,000 school districts in the United States, so the expedient thing was to allow him to disappear. In such a decentralized situation, it was not uncommon for some school district to employ them with only a cursory check of his background. Ironically it was the priest crisis that has caused a tightening of procedures.

I am of course dismayed by the facts, but I attribute it to the demoralization of priests and nuns in the wake of liberal reforms after Vatican II. It was a big thing to be a priest in 1950 but not in 1975. Men who in 1950 would have been thrown out of the seminary were graduated and ordained in 1975, because of the shortage. I call it "
the hollowing out of the priesthood." Given that the Jay Jay reported that most of the abuse involved homosexual abuse of teenagers, an abuse always existent in the Church became more widespread. Clericalism takes many forms.

*No doubt, there is a huge spotlight on the Church, moreso than any other organization…BUT WE ARE NOT ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION. We are Christ’s Church, my gosh, we need to take the moral high road…not say, well…boyscouts and teachers have bad reps too, so…(I am not saying YOU are saying this, but you know what I mean?) They are not representatives of Christ on earth. We are ALL sinners, to varying degrees and sins. But, The Church is in the spotlight because She is the standard with which we should all follow. She is the beacon of Truth, and when the hierarchy of that beacon of Truth, did things that are so unfathomable to the human mind, we cannot shirk away from full responsibility, and full ownership. It’s not Vatican II’s fault…it’s not the sexual revolution’s fault…we each must own our own sin, or we will never ever repent. This happened because some men with severe mental illness and depravity entered the priesthood…which is why I debate those who say it is about celibacy. No, it’s not about celibacy. Its about the wrong men becoming priests to begin with, and the Vatican not having the same restrictions and psychological tests in place, as they do today.

There are no excuses. To defend what happened with ‘‘it’s happening in other organizations,’’ or ‘‘the media just hates the Church,’’ etc…does no good. The public doesn’t hate the Church. But, people tend to like to see people in high places (especially moral ones) fall from ‘‘grace,’’ and that is why the media is having a field day. The media didn’t make this stuff up, though…that’s the tragedy. Not that they are reporting it.*

 

[whatevergirl]

Robby, before I forget…when you have a chance…can you clarify what you mean by ‘‘unbalanced reporting of facts?’’ Thanks, I’m a little confused and just want to be on the same page

 

[MercyMia]

Whatevergirl…you are really speaking my feelings here.
I am in alot of emotional agony of this entire thing, yet over the past week God has been giving me graces I didn’t even know I had.

 

[mlund]

mlund:

Yet another example of how far journalism has degenerated - it is really quite sad.

They want to smear Pope Benedict XVI because his office did not put a dying, professedly repentant man on a trial where he could not defend himself due to infirmity. They don’t bother to mention that civil judiciaries do the same thing all the time. They also bury in the back of the article the fact that civil charges were dropped against this priest.

Their outrage is selective, hypocritical, and ignorant. Works like this demean the value of the written word.

• Marty Lund

WOW! Would you and others like you who defend poor those old sex-crime-commiting priests like a shovel? What’s sad is completely disregarding the children who were abused. That’s what’s sad.

Perhaps you should go back and spend the time due this gravely serious issue to re-read the article in question as well as my post. As a parent, I understand that child abuse is a topic that enrages us and often compels us to act without proper reasoning. I can empathize.

The actions the child-molester took are indefensible. Stating that I said something to the contrary is False Witness.

I assume in charity that you’ve unintentionally run right past the point made. The smear against the Pope was that as Cardinal he “failed to defrock” a priest after “being warned” that he molested children.

Let’s examine the facts of the matter:

According to the article, the notification to Cardinal Ratzinger’s office was submitted in 1996. Likewise, according to the article the priest in question died in 1998. The instances of molestation cited come from decades prior. The priest himself admitted in his letter to the Cardinal’s office that he committed such heinous acts and was repentant of them.

There was no “warning” to Cardinal Ratzinger.
There was no molestation after the so-called “warning.”

So that addresses the latter portion of the smear.

The former portion would be the allegation that Cardinal Ratzinger “failed to defrock” the man. As noted or implied in the article:

• defrocking requires a trial under Canon Law
• the priest in question was dying and too infirm to stand trial
• the civil authorities likewise did not make him stand trial

Then Cardinal Ratzinger was not “warned about” a dangerous pedophile who then went on to harm children. He was notified of a confessed former child-molester on his deathbed decades after the abuse. He did not “fail to defrock” the priest in the sense of any negligence or immoral action - just as the authorities pursuing the civil charges against the man did not “fail to prosecute” him in the same way.

The requirement that the accused or confessed by of sound mind and body to defend himself at trial is not a frivolity. It is essential to our practice of justice. Likewise it generally prohibits any post-mortem “defrocking” by the Church or criminal convictions by the State.

So the selective outrage and slander against Pope Benedict XVI for adhering to due process is misleading and disingenuous, just like the sensationalism of the article title and lead in falsely implicating that he failed to heed warnings about a dangerous pedophile.

Further, while the Church has made great strides to policing abuses over the last two decades these irresponsible journalists have completely swept the rampant sexual abuse in Public Schools and similar rates of abuse in other religions and non-religious organization. They create and sustain a dishonest “narrative” of an epidemic of abuse that’s supposedly unique to the Catholic clergy that provides a cover for abuse happening elsewhere by implying that falsehood that rates in those other places are smaller or insignificant. That course of action generates high profits for the news reporters and outlets while potentially serving to abet further harm to children.

Reporting accurately on child molestation to bring it to light and stop it is good.
Reporting inaccurately or misleadingly on child molestation to bring in ratings and sales is not good.

• Marty Lund

 

[dixieagle]

*No doubt, there is a huge spotlight on the Church, moreso than any other organization…BUT WE ARE NOT ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION. We are Christ’s Church, my gosh, we need to take the moral high road…not say, well…boyscouts and teachers have bad reps too, so…(I am not saying YOU are saying this, but you know what I mean?) They are not representatives of Christ on earth. We are ALL sinners, to varying degrees and sins. But, The Church is in the spotlight because She is the standard with which we should all follow. She is the beacon of Truth, and when the hierarchy of that beacon of Truth, did things that are so unfathomable to the human mind, we cannot shirk away from full responsibility, and full ownership. It’s not Vatican II’s fault…it’s not the sexual revolution’s fault…we each must own our own sin, or we will never ever repent. This happened because some men with severe mental illness and depravity entered the priesthood…which is why I debate those who say it is about celibacy. No, it’s not about celibacy. Its about the wrong men becoming priests to begin with, and the Vatican not having the same restrictions and psychological tests in place, as they do today.

There are no excuses. To defend what happened with ‘‘it’s happening in other organizations,’’ or ‘‘the media just hates the Church,’’ etc…does no good. The public doesn’t hate the Church. But, people tend to like to see people in high places (especially moral ones) fall from ‘‘grace,’’ and that is why the media is having a field day. The media didn’t make this stuff up, though…that’s the tragedy. Not that they are reporting it.*

Right on, WG!!!

Excellent, to the point, and in a nutshell.

 

[pnewton]

We can hate them for unbalanced reporting of the facts.

The Times makes the news and sways public opinion. This story is so old that in any other area it would be laughable to report it. Hey, let’s rehash Watergate why we’re at it.

One of these days there may really be a problem that is a current issue that the Church needs to address. I could easily miss it, as might others as often as I hear “Wolf” called. This article does nothing for me other than remind me that Catholicism is the last bastion of publically approved prejudice.

 

[Rence]

“Anyone who knew about crimes against kids and had a hand in those priests being permitted to carry on such atrocities elsewhere, should be required to step down.”

you do realize that you’re calling for the defrocking/stepping down of the pope himself as he was directly involved in the covering up and did absoltuely zero to stop it or bring anyone to justice. catholic justice, or state justice. he was the one who allowed mr. murphy to continue to serve as a priest with “dignity” and allowed him to be buried in priestly vestments.

so be careful what you say.

If the Pope was directly involved in the covering up and did absolutely zero to stop it or bring anyone to justice then he should be required to stop down, and I agree with that too. I can’t think of one reason why he shouldn’t be required.

 

[Rence]

easy easy,
I wasn’t saying that, all I was saying is as an outsider (protestant) looking in, statements like that confuse me in the sense that I didn’t think a layperson has the right to make those pronoucnement/judgments about the head of the magesterium

that’s all.

No offense, but, then why does a layperson have the right to insist the Pope excommunicate someone after the Pope has deemed it inappropriate?

And by NOT requiring his removal, you send out a much more negative message to the Protestants as well as shake the faith of Catholics.

 

[pnewton]

There are no excuses. To defend what happened with ‘‘it’s happening in other organizations,’’ or ‘‘the media just hates the Church,’’ etc…does no good.

*It is not a defense of what happened to cry “foul” when the same stories keep getting reported over and over again for years and decades. The essence of news is supposed to be “new”. Otherwise, we have the times teaching history, not reporting news. The thing is, when I look critical at the time table of what happened and who did what when, I can’t understand for the life of me why this is in the paper at this time. A lot a people just read the headlines. Some reading this headline may be shocked that the Church hasn’t learned from the past and never read the details. Therein they may find that this story took place before they were born.

 

[Rence]

Perhaps you should go back and spend the time due this gravely serious issue to re-read the article in question as well as my post. As a parent, I understand that child abuse is a topic that enrages us and often compels us to act without proper reasoning. I can empathize.

The actions the child-molester took are indefensible. Stating that I said something to the contrary is False Witness.

I assume in charity that you’ve unintentionally run right past the point made. The smear against the Pope was that as Cardinal he “failed to defrock” a priest after “being warned” that he molested children.

Let’s examine the facts of the matter:

According to the article, the notification to Cardinal Ratzinger’s office was submitted in 1996. Likewise, according to the article the priest in question died in 1998. The instances of molestation cited come from decades prior. The priest himself admitted in his letter to the Cardinal’s office that he committed such heinous acts and was repentant of them.

There was no “warning” to Cardinal Ratzinger.
There was no molestation after the so-called “warning.”

So that addresses the latter portion of the smear.

The former portion would be the allegation that Cardinal Ratzinger “failed to defrock” the man. As noted or implied in the article:

• defrocking requires a trial under Canon Law
• the priest in question was dying and too infirm to stand trial
• the civil authorities likewise did not make him stand trial

Then Cardinal Ratzinger was not “warned about” a dangerous pedophile who then went on to harm children. He was notified of a confessed former child-molester on his deathbed decades after the abuse. He did not “fail to defrock” the priest in the sense of any negligence or immoral action - just as the authorities pursuing the civil charges against the man did not “fail to prosecute” him in the same way.

The requirement that the accused or confessed by of sound mind and body to defend himself at trial is not a frivolity. It is essential to our practice of justice. Likewise it generally prohibits any post-mortem “defrocking” by the Church or criminal convictions by the State.

So the selective outrage and slander against Pope Benedict XVI for adhering to due process is misleading and disingenuous, just like the sensationalism of the article title and lead in falsely implicating that he failed to heed warnings about a dangerous pedophile.

Further, while the Church has made great strides to policing abuses over the last two decades these irresponsible journalists have completely swept the rampant sexual abuse in Public Schools and similar rates of abuse in other religions and non-religious organization. They create and sustain a dishonest “narrative” of an epidemic of abuse that’s supposedly unique to the Catholic clergy that provides a cover for abuse happening elsewhere by implying that falsehood that rates in those other places are smaller or insignificant. That course of action generates high profits for the news reporters and outlets while potentially serving to abet further harm to children.

Reporting accurately on child molestation to bring it to light and stop it is good.
Reporting inaccurately or misleadingly on child molestation to bring in ratings and sales is not good.

• Marty Lund

So … he confessed to molesting children. Too sick to stand trial? Ok, well then we’ll bury him in good standing with the Church in his vestments? I’m sorry, I realize you’re being empathetic with the priest, but not only is this not an isolated incident, not only are they making the same “mistakes” repeatedly at the expense of children, but it doesn’t appear to be getting any better. Nope, I don’t have any sympathy for any of them. Something tells me that this isn’t the end of all this shame to and within the Church. What excuse will be used next time? All they’re doing is adding to the list of excuses. What about the kids that were abused? I don’t care of he was 99 years old and crawling to the courts, the Church should have done SOMETHING.

 

[whatevergirl]

It is not a defense of what happened to cry “foul” when the same stories keep getting reported over and over again for years and decades. The essence of news is supposed to be “new”. Otherwise, we have the times teaching history, not reporting news. The thing is, when I look critical at the time table of what happened and who did what when, I can’t understand for the life of me why this is in the paper at this time. A lot a people just read the headlines. Some reading this headline may be shocked that the Church hasn’t learned from the past and never read the details. Therein they may find that this story took place before they were born.

*These stories are new to me, and many. The actual incidents being reported happened a while ago, yes. But, it’s news because the victims are coming forth and suing…now and in recent past. If this were handled properly back in the 60’s, 70’s? When the allegations were hitting? Then I’d agree with you, it would seem strange to be reading about old news then. But, this is news because of the victims coming forth now. They should be heard, and as uncomfortable and saddened it makes Catholics to know this went on…these victims deserve this time in the news. *

 

[mlund]

So … he confessed to molesting children. Too sick to stand trial? Ok, well then we’ll bury him in good standing with the Church in his vestments?

He’s confessed, repentant, and dying. What, exactly, do you think the Church can do to him?

I’m sorry, I realize you’re being empathetic with the priest

No, I’m not being empathetic with the priest. I’m being empathetic with then-Cardinal Ratzinger who had to deal with the complaint against the guy, not the child molester.

but not only is this not an isolated incident, not only are they making the same “mistakes” repeatedly at the expense of children, but it doesn’t appear to be getting any better.

The reporting isn’t getting better, but the rates of sexual abuse and policies guarding against it have improved drastically since the 1960s and 70s.

Nope, I don’t have any sympathy for any of them. Something tells me that this isn’t the end of all this shame to and within the Church. What excuse will be used next time? All they’re doing is adding to the list of excuses.

Well, none of that is grounded in any facts we can really discuss. Those are your feelings and prognostications.

What about the kids that were abused?

You can read the standing reports out there. The Church has put forth a number of resources including counseling and compensation for victims, meetings with Bishops, formal apologies, prayer services for abuse survivors, and increased preventative measures to help save potential future victims from abuse.

I don’t care of he was 99 years old and crawling to the courts, the Church should have done SOMETHING.

That’s easy say, but the implications of violating due process are severe. Are you seeking some sort of justice outside the law? What about the State, who also dropped its charges and is under no obligation to forgive the repentant? I understand and share the outrage against acts of child molestation. I do not see that outrage as an excuse to skip past due process. That way leads to things like vigilante actions and “street justice.” Stepping outside of due process is a serious matter of grave concern - not something safe to do in a fit of outrage.

• Marty Lund