The sex abuse scandal has increasingly entangled Pope Benedict XVI and Vatican in allegations of the cover-up of molesting priests. Now, one case has directly implicated the Pope after it was learned that in the 1990s then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger effectively spared an American molesting hundreds of deaf boys. The then Cardinal received letters from Wisconsin priests asking him to move against the Reverend Lawrence Murphy, who worked at the St John’s School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin. He appears to have blocked efforts to defrock Murphy.
The disclosure came as part of litigation against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. In 1996 Murphy’s case was forwarded to the the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by then Cardinal Ratzinger, who declined to act on the case even after the Archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert Weakland, asked him to defrocked the priest.
Notably, the Pope’s right hand man, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (now his Vatican’s secretary of state) had ordered a canonical trial but that was stopped by the Pope after Murphy wrote to the Pope asking for mercy. He wrote to the Pope that he was in bad health and “I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood . . . I ask your kind assistance in this matter.” He appears to have gotten the assistance that he sought. He was able to live out his days as a priest.
This is the second major abuse case tied directly to the Pontiff this month, here.
UPDATE: The Vatican has issued a statement denying the allegations vis-a-vis Murphy, here.
For the full story, click here.
John, your use of the word “nuance” calls to mind the oft repeated and morally indefensible position taken by many bishops over the years that efforts to prevent public disclosure of sexual abuse by priests were necessary to avoid giving scandal (in the theological sense of that word) to the faithful. If the priest in question had been accused not of numerous acts of pedophilia but of participating in the murder of Jews during World War II, neither the passage of decades nor the state of his health would have produced a call for compassion to prevent his extradition to stand trial for his crimes.
It is not the disclosure of wrongdoing by the consecrated which give scandal to the faithful any more than it is the disclosure of criminality in the White House which does damage to the Constitution. The scandal and the damage are produced by the efforts to shroud the events in secrecy and to protect the wrongdoers from bearing the appropriate consequences. As we know from the history of Watergate, the eventual emergence of the truth revitalized the institutions of government and confirmed our faith in the Constitution as the protector of freedom.
In like manner, the prompt and frank admission of clerical wrongdoing and the submission of the perpetrators to the civil and criminal penalties prescribed for their actions would have served as a demonstration to the faithful that its chief concern was for the flock rather than for the temporal shepherds. It would also have demonstrated to the faithful the importance of choosing the humility of truth over the pride of falsehood. What occurred in the case of Fr. Murphy is another instance of a breach of the most fundamental duty of the hierarchy.
Elaine M.
Your post does not detract from my comment, or its implications. It only strengthens them.
A careful reading of the news report you pasted in is sufficient rebuke to Turley and should give you pause before you condemn the Pope (which you did not do, but somewhat suggested).
First, the news report shows that it was liberal archbishop Weakland, himself now tarnished by a homosexual scandal, who sat on the belatedly raised allegations for three years. Worse, Weakland had the authority to deal with the matter and instead attempted to “pass the buck” to the Vatican. Why didn’t Weakland make the case public and commit his diocese to rectifying the harm caused? (Be mindful that there were other available sanctions beyond defrocking.) Probably because a situation with 200+ potential claimants would possibly bankrupt the Wisoonsin diocese – Weakland would come off as a rather feeble pastor administering the liquidation of his diocesian assets.
Second, given the above, it appears equally clear that Ratzinger (now the Pope) observed that Weakland was handing up a badly screwed up case with what we call in the law a “bad record”. Note that the story indicates Murphy’s contention that the charges fell outside of the Church’s own “statute of limitations” (I don’t know whether that would be true or not; perhaps so for the Vatican office, but probably not so for Weakland in Milwaukee.) It is very possible that a “trial” of Murphy if approved by Ratzinger could have resulted in an “acquittal”, which would have been equally or more embarrassing and not accomplished the objective you believe would have been fair. Indeed, the “trial” (given the time-lapse customary in Catholic Church proceedings — do you know how long annulment cases take? the length of Gallileo’s inquisition?) could well have been still in progress when Murphy died in 1998. (The news report also indicates that “two years” is clearly too long a period of time between the date that a proceeding would have begun and the date of Murphy’s death.) On balance, Ratzinger’s refusal of the trial was prudent in that Murphy very soon thereafter would be confronting a Judge of a very different character — meaning, the Lord, if you are too obtuse.
Third, the more the facts come out on this, as I suspect, the more it is clear that the Pope was not “covering” for a child molesting priest. I could not agree with you more that child molesting priests deserve full criminal punishment and the maximum opprobrium implicit in their evil actions, and the same for their superiors who intentionally “covered up” crimes. (I equally agree that the victims require just compensation and continued support.) But it is wrong to conflate righteous anger over these situations into inappropriate blame against the Pope if there is nothing more than these facts. Of equal concern for me is use of the Church sex abuse scandal to vilify the Church and Roman Catholicism. My guess is that the Church will be around until the end of humanity and the story of 20th century priest sex abuse will be a small historical footnote.
John,
I was raised a Catholic and attended parochial school for twelve years. I was told I’d go to hell if I missed Mass on Sundays. But, I guess there are some leaders in the church who think it’s okay to be a pedophile priest who abuses young boys. That priest should have been defrocked for his crimes against children. It doesn’t matter when the crimes were committed.
************
Some excerpts from
Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys
by Laurie Goodstein
New York Times, 3/25/2010
Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.
The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.
**********
In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee’s archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican’s secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy’s dismissal.
But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.
**********
In 1993, with complaints about Father Murphy landing on his desk, Archbishop Weakland hired a social worker specializing in treating sexual offenders to evaluate him. After four days of interviews, the social worker said that Father Murphy had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse.
However, it was not until 1996 that Archbishop Weakland tried to have Father Murphy defrocked. The reason, he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger, was to defuse the anger among the deaf and restore their trust in the church. He wrote that since he had become aware that “solicitation in the confessional might be part of the situation,” the case belonged at the doctrinal office.
With no response from Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Weakland wrote a different Vatican office in March 1997 saying the matter was urgent because a lawyer was preparing to sue, the case could become public and “true scandal in the future seems very possible.”
Recently some bishops have argued that the 1962 norms dictating secret disciplinary procedures have long fallen out of use. But it is clear from these documents that in 1997, they were still in force.
But the effort to dismiss Father Murphy came to a sudden halt after the priest appealed to Cardinal Ratzinger for leniency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
interesting talk on morality:
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
How nice of Professor Turley to engage in a little Catholic-baiting with his post which accentuates the sensational aspects of this more nuanced story. And why not, when one can help stir up allegations against the Pope himself?
This story, now, is at the level of the “birther” accusations against Obama (which, acoording to recent polls, are accepted by 25% of Americans). Why doesn’t Prof. Turley post on the salacious accusations of the Birthers? Why should Obama command more respect than the Pope?
All the then-Cardinal seemed to do was hold up a “secret” internal Church proceeding against an isolated, dying priest, whose crimes were committed decades before, on the grounds of the priest’s claims of repentance and imminent death. It was a spent case by the time it hit the Cardinal’s desk 3,000 miles away in the Vatican and two years from the priest’s death. If this is all there is on this story, the Pope will weather this tempest in a tea pot quite easily.
Elaine M.,
That is funny. ROFLMAS…….
Buddha,
Quickly, it is the term used to describe the one that is not in favor of the current administration. It was a political issue. Hence, you could have had 1,2 or 3 Popes at the same time and the only one that was the real Pope was the one your particular sect/cult (at the time) favored.
That is why the head of the Greek Orthodox Church is not considered a pope but Arch Bishop. I think that they were paid a lot of money or given something of equal value to have the naming rights.
I am sure Mike A. can give a better answer.
Elaine M.,
I’m sorry to say that that the term “Auntie Pope” has already been taken. That’s what the pontiff’s valet was preparing for the night he was arrested picking up male prostitutes…their favorite Friday night Vatican follies: Auntie Pope! 🙂
Rotten at the top and spreading downward; rotten at the bottom and spreading upward … methinks the Holy Spirit has flown the coop.
Smell the brimstone?
Buddha,
“Is it just me or is the term “Anti-pope” inherently funny?”
Maybe the Catholic Church wouldn’t be facing all these sex abuse problems if they allowed women to become priests and had “Auntie Popes.”
Is it just me or is the term “Anti-pope” inherently funny?
Mike A.,
I guess this is good and he is not to be confused with Augustine of Canterbury. I will also state not bad thinking for someone born in 354 or the 4th Century. I guess some people would have a problem with him as he was born in Africa. But then again, he Dad was wealthy and his mom went on to become St. Monica.
Good boy.
Like anyone here with personal medical information about Mike would share it with you after you’ve openly tried to intimidate him, bdaparticularilyslowtoday. Especially since most of the regulars consider him a friend. Truly boneheaded play this morning, sport. You should try sleeping in a position that doesn’t cut off the oxygen to your brain. Such as it is.
Now unless you have something “valuable” to say about the Pederast Loving Pope, it’s about time for you to go lick your wounds. Your feeble attempt to hijack to salve your self-inflicted wounds is just that – feeble.
Are you feeling okay? Are you eating well? Getting enough exercise? Seriously, investing the triumvirate of sleep, proper nutrition and exercise isn’t just good for the body, but the mind as well. That’s not a taunt. That’s just good advice.
Sorry Duh, you give someone a compliment and they want to make mash out of rehash. I’ll stop, your right. Thanks
“Europe is now being wracked by fresh priest-abuse scandals, much like the United States was 10 years ago. James Carroll on how the Catholic Church aided and abetted the offenders.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-11/the-vatican-sex-conspiracy/
AY, the very same.
Read the article and even more mind boggling the accompanying “papers” in the New York Times re this Father Murphy. In 1974, when this guy was “caught”, the Milwaukee police cooperated and refused to prosecute him. All of the diocesan records relating to this guy from this period have disappeared. At that time he was “transferred” to the Superior WI area, to live with his mother, where he was to have no contact with boys. This restriction was ignored. It was only in the 1990’s when a few of his victims got so frustrated they put “wanted” posters with Murphy’s picture on car windshields at some sort of church gathering, that the Church had to deal with defrocking this guy. (WI statute of limitations on child abuse had long passed.) Rembert Weakland, O.S.B. (then archbishop of Milw., who was forced to resign in 2002 when it was discovered he had paid off a male lover with church funds) drug his feet. The canon law papers make interesting reading, including the statement that under canon law this child molester would always be considered a priest in the “eyes of God” even if he was laicized/defrocked. This theological point was raised in an effort to dissuade the victims from proceeding.
bdaman,
Shame on you! I push for civility, and you resort to taunting. Do you often poke a dog with a stick and then complain when you get bitten? Grow up! You’re in the Professor’s house. Show some respect.
SM
Is that what it is, a bad heart. I’m sorry to hear that. Whats the prognosis?
BIL
I’ve got tools you haven’t even seen yet. Too funny, one of a kind a legend in your own mind.