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.
@ Mespo
No, Mespo, you simply don’t understand.
By the early 1990’s the Catholic Church, from the Vatican down, was well aware of the problem of priest child sex abuse. A protocol was developed to deal with it, internally. That protocol included submission to clinical examination and a requirement that the priest confess his sins and make direct amends. The Congregation of the Faith, headed by Ratzinger, recommended that that be done instead of a continuation of the trial. Had Murphy lived, and assuming a diagnosis of pedophilia, he could have demonstrated sufficient public repentence, full apologies to the victims, and made other debasing amends. This would have constituted both justice and an internal church resolution as satisfying, or perhaps even more satisfying, than defrocking him. And defrocking would only have been almost technical anyway, as he had been excluded from full ecclesiastical duties and participation anyway for 35 years. In any event, had Murphy lived, and had he not complied with these instructions related to his further repentence, his trial could be resumed, as the Vatican clearly stated in the documents apparently read selectively by NYT, CNN, and everyone else. So no trial was stopped for good.
By the way your ignorance of Catholic practice, canon law, and theology is showing. Ex-communication is not the standard practice in response to sin, regardless of its gravity. It is a practice applied only to an unrepentent recidivist- there is no evidence that Murphy fell into that category by 1996 when this all became an issue.
Only a public stoning would appear to be satisfactory for you. Go on and troll somewhere else with your Catholic baiting.
AY,
Could be either it seems
The only clown I see is the one in Rome wearing a red dress and covering up child rape.
Is Gerty back or are do we just seem to have more of the same here?
John:
You point to a kangaroo court to prove the validity and responsibility of the Vatican’s motives. Suspend the trial? Why? because the pedophile was sick and promised to do better along with writing a few carefully worded apologies. This isn’t IBM we’re talking about. It’s the supposed embodiment of the deity on Earth employing men “called” thereby to the mission of salvation, and THE moral beacon for the world. It would take Stevie Wonder with a bag on his head in a hurricane not to see the hypocrisy going on here. That the “Holy Father” countenanced anything except excommunication tells me all I need to know about his motivations, character, and ability to shepherd the “flock.” That, about as apt a description of the fawning laity as I have ever heard – you included.
@ Elaine, Mike A., Mespo and other mespo-like clowns.
I have now read all the pertinent documents regarding the Murphy case helpfully posted to NYT’s website on this story.
The accusation that the Vatican and/ or Cardinal Ratzinger “spared” Murphy or “covered up” his crimes is complete hogwash. More to point, Ratzinger did not end the trial of Murphy.
1. Weakland first wrote the Vatican seeking authorization for the commencement of a canonical trial in 1996. Ratzinger knew nothing about the matter before then. Also at that time, a significant number of people outside of the heirarch and the priesthood were aware of Father Murphy’s past.
2. There was no evidence of any abuse occurring after 1974. Murphy was relegated to a family home in remote Boulder Junction Wisconsin, where he lived from 1974 until his death. He had no assigned duties as a priest during that time.
3. Deliberations over the commencement of the canonical trial, like most legal proceedings, particularly Vatican proceedings, occurred from 1996 through 1998.
4. The trial was to be conducted pursuant to canon law. Whether the 1962 or 1983 Code applied is not clear to me from the documents, but in both cases, the canon laws own statute of limitations barred a trial on 35 year old allegations.
5. The trial actually began in 1998, but did not appear to progress to the point of admitting evidence. In May 1998, Murphy wrote Ratzinger pleading a suspension of the trial based on ill health (two strokes), old age (72), a repentence of allegedly 35 years, and the aforesaid statute of limitations.
6. In the summer of 1998, a meeting was conducted in the Vatican including Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee, and the following points were covered:
A. The points raised in Murphy’s letter.
B. Interestingly, the American legal environment wherein the rights of the defendant are considered paramount.
C. Concerns regarding how any further action could receive misinterpretation and attendant bad press in the media, thereby causing more problems then solving them.
The minutes of this meeting were available to the Milwaukee heirarchy after their translation in mid August 1998.
7. The Vatican, in the course of the meeting, issued its decision on the matter, also translated in mid August:
A. The trial should abate.
B. Father Murphy should subject himself to examination by pedophilia specialists and a clinical determination of the existence of pedophilia should be made.
C. Father Murphy should be instructed on a course of further and more intense self examination and the expectation would be that he proclaim for significant declarations of repentence and make written personal apologies to all identified (presumably confessed by Murphy as well) victims.
D. If B and C did not result in satisfactory progress, THE TRIAL WOULD RESUME!
8. The trial was abated in early September to follow the aforsaid protocol. Murphy died about two weeks later.
9. Within weeks after Murphy’s death, Archbishop Weakland issued a public apology to the victims regarding Murphy’s transgressions.
John, the editorial conclusion to your last comment, that Catholic bashers, including those with parochial school issues, should move on, is presumptuous. You know nothing about me or my parochial school experiences. You have no factual basis upon which to call into question my motives or my good faith. Therefore, should you have any interest in continuing this exchange, I ask some confirmation that you agree that ad hominem argument is childish and out of place, particularly on a subject as serious as this one.
Byron:
No question that processed tobacco is replete with lots of carcinogens like ammonia, benzene and cadmium. I don’t have the stats but the NIH does.
Mespo:
I think that cigarettes have been known to be bad for your health since at least the 30’s and I think that tobacco alone is not the problem it is the abundance of other chemicals that are used to enhance the tobacco.
Do you know the stats on cancer and cigar smokers?
John:
Your argument reminds me of the defense posited by the tobacco companies just a few years before their death throes. The companies took the position that while we did wrong in covering up the effects to health of smoking, the crimes occurred years ago and the new regime was just stuck with them;also the new regime did all it could by placing warning labels on the product (neglecting to mention they fought it every step of the way); and finally, in last resort, everyone knew about the problem already so why do we have to tell them (despite their dogged misinformation campaign which many nicotine addicts and the slow witted bought hook, line and sinker). That didn’t work for Phillip Morris, and it shouldn’t work for those who claim to be the agents of divinity here on Earth. Defective religion is every bit as pernicious as defective products, and the buck stops at the palatial office at 120 Via del Pellegrino, regardless of who is temporarily wearing the pointy hat.
Bless you Gyges! You get it. I will cross your name from the lista de condenados en el tribunal de auto de fe’.
Mespo,
Personally I think we should teach the controversy,
http://controversy.wearscience.com/design/stork/
Prof Turley’s links to updates, CNN, confirms my suspicions enunciated earlier and eradicates speculation by Elaine and Mike Appleton that the Church did not do enough in the Murphy case.
1. The Vatican has fully responded to the NYT article.
2. Murphy’s latest known crimes occurred in 1973. Ratzinger was first informed of them 20 years later.
3. Murphy’s crimes were reported to the police, the matter was investigated, and the case was closed with no prosecution. Thus there was not criminal record containing evidence of a crime committed.
4. A civil case was filed by one or more victims in 1975 and “resolved”. Ostensibly, there was a settlement.
5. As a result of the foregoing, Murphy was “relocated to his family’s home in 1975”. The CNN report is not particularly clear on an important point, but does state: “Murphy’s request for retirement was accepted in January 1993, but restrictions against him were reinstated that year and reinforced twice.” It is clear, but not in the story, that “restrictions” were imposed sometime between 1974 and 1993. Therefore, the diocesian heirarchy had taken action against him.
6. When the plea for a Vatican authorized defrocking proceeding was received by the Vatican in 1996, the Vatican clearly responded at that time 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…” That is hardly taking no action or engaging in cover up.
7. In addition to the instruction to take punitive measures, the Vatican also concluded that “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” it would not authorize the defrocking proceeding.
8. The priest Murphy died four months after the Vatican’s responses were made and which were referred to in paras. 6 and 7 aabove.
I think the record is pretty clear that the Pope was not covering up child abuse in this situation. Therefore Catholic bashers – including those with anger issues from parochial school – should move on….
jake:
“But at the very least, respect the people who have seriously thought it through and believe what they believe.
No, I think the value in this blog has always been its ability to play the court jester—point to society itself and laugh. But there should be limits to that, especially when questionable stories are used to mock the belief systems of others.”
*************
Thank you Jake, for those kind words of complete toleration. I, for one, have completely thought through the Stork Theory of Human Reproduction and do hereby reject any other ideas of sexual human reproduction. First, many births appear without cameras or even eye witnesses (save the unreliable mother), and who is to say that a large white bird didn’t deposit the babe on a nearby window ledge for the mother to find. In fact, why do hospitals all seem to have window ledges? Answer me that? As for the “births” at night, well, what a great cover for those flapping wings. And that enlarged anatomy of the female human–just an excuse to overeat and relax while all others work. Second do you notice that you rarely see a stork in the wild anymore. Obviously, they are busy delivering babies world-wide and have no time for one-legged swamp standing. “Diminishing habitats” are just cover words for the apostates, who refuse to accept what was written hundreds of years ago about the miraculous power of storks.
Those proofs aside, the most salient confirmation of the phenomena is my sincere feeling that I would not want to exist in a universe where storks did not deliver babies. It makes me feel warm, and self-actualized, and I do many good works in service to that single idea. In fact, I would likely turn to serial murder unless I knew the Great Mother Stork in the sky was watching over me to insure that I too would one day be worthy of a wing-borne child of my own.
So you see, Jake all ideas deserve respect simply because others sincerely believe them, and it is eminently more humane to humor a person’s delusion than to confront and correct them. Look at all the good that dogmatic beliefs have done for this world we live in!! Reason, why that inevitably leads to repression and devilish evil as most every civilization’s sad history (save our own-but it’s early still) has proven, but faith based reasoning gives us the divine gifts of absolute certainty and the courage of our convictions to dispose of those non-believers who just can’t (or won’t) get it.
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla sapientia mundus regatur?
@Mike Appleton
You’re missing my point by a mile. And by making your own separate point, which isn’t entirely clear, you are being evasive. Who “breached the fundamental duty of the heirarchy”? Ratzinger? Weakland? If I wasn’t more clear, IMO it was Weakland, the superior who was in direct charge in the diocese. As I stated, Ratzinger was presented with bill of goods with which he could do little and putting a trial in motion could have made things worse.
Many are jumping to conclusions without the facts. It appears that Murphy’s crimes were made public years before the Vatican was informed. So Ratzinger was not suppressing information. The story recites the failure of the Milwaukee police to take any action. Surely Ratzinger cannot be faulted for misfeasance by Wisconsin civil authorities.
The main problem was the quiet transfer of Murphy, and failure to report or pursue his transgressions, in 1975. The story is unclear as to what he did between 1975 and 1990. In any event, none of the players of importance to the 1996 episode were around in 1975 to make a difference. Both Weakland and Ratzinger were dealing with a matter occurring long after the fact.
Moreover, folks seem to be forgetting that as of 1992 or before, this issue of priest child sex abuse was well out of the closet and cases were being examined all over the country. In reading some of these posts, I get the impression that folks think that Ratzinger’s refusal to authorize the proceeding in 1996 was part of a cover up of priestly abuse cases in the US. That clearly was not the case as these cases were being widely publicized; the victims rights movement had been well organized and in full swing for several years by that time.
Finally, Mike, your comparison of political and legal obligations of American officials to the obligations of Catholic heirarcy is off the mark. Apples and oranges.
John–
“Your post does not detract from my comment, or its implications. It only strengthens them.”
I disagree. I guess we look at things differently. There’s plenty of blame to go around. That priest raped deaf children!
Any priest, monsignor, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, pope who was made aware of Father Murphy’s crimes and did nothing has more than a mortal sin on his soul.
For many years, the church has worked to coverup the crimes of Father Murphy and many other priests–and they’re still doing it today. In a number of cases, the church transferred known pedophile priests to other parishes and were still allowed to come in contact with children. How many lives have been destroyed by these pedophiles priests?
Statute of limitations–on the sexual abuse of children by priests? Give me a break!!!
Elaine,
In re: Auntie Pope
Right now, the boys from Python are slapping their foreheads at the missed opportunity. 😀
Not at all. I should make it clear that I respect most of the community here, I respect PT. That’s why I read and occasionally post :D.
I was referring mostly to belief itself. That is becoming more and more of a target here. See for example a recent posting that implied how stupid creationists are. True, I don’t think creationism makes much sense. But at the very least, respect the people who have seriously thought it through and believe what they believe.
No, I think the value in this blog has always been its ability to play the court jester—point to society itself and laugh. But there should be limits to that, especially when questionable stories are used to mock the belief systems of others.
So Jake, John, et al.,
What should the Professor do, point out all of Bushes Foibles? Obama’s? The BSA? and not mention the stuff that has been hidden even by law enforcement? I don’t think that he is singling out the RCC. If my understanding is correct he is Catholic himself. I hope your position is not to keep it under the rung.
I’m with John. While I’m not Catholic, nor do I think sexual abuse should go unnoticed, Prof. Turley seems to be turning more and more predatory with his posts. Some of this energy is directed at churches, seemingly in an effort to mock rather than promote information, discussion, debate. Reading the news closely would have been a start. Maybe I’m just taking more away from this than I should, but I don’t think so if someone like me can notice it.
The growing negative experience is only exacerbated by losers who squabble over irrelevant discussions long over–discussions without winners. I concede this isn’t supposed to be a fair forum, or even an uplifting piece of media. But if we aren’t willing to try, why do we read or post?