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.
If it is convincing, is it worth it for the millions of people you will entrench in the very dogma you denounce? Are the transaction costs so low that you are still making a profit in “souls” if you offend and entrench 100 for every one person you “save”? 10 to 1? 5 to 1?!
Buddha,
And there’s my point. Your covering dogma was merely reciting how dogma is not usually sound. I think we agree on that.
So indulge me once again, why do you think you can awaken the “sleeping”? Are you that much more awake? Do you think true followers of Jesus’ teachings, assuming he taught what you say he did, won’t examine their lives without your “enlightened” reason? If not, do you truly think your mocking their religion is convincing?
I believe I covered dogma, Jake. And the purpose of exposing illogical thought based on illogical obedience is to awaken the sleeping. One cannot examine one’s life if is one in unaware or unable to learn an objective lesson because they are blinded by an unverifiable belief. That should be self-evident. To suggest that Jesus didn’t want you to examine your life when he most clearly wanted you to look into your heart first when looking for His Father is not logical. Jesus and Socrates and Plato could not all be wrong in this consensus. They were all wise teachers, some just claimed more unusual genealogy than others.
Cannon “law” isn’t law at all either. Try using it in a court of law and you’ll find it has no substantive value under the Constitution. It’s more analogous to corporate policy. Nice that your club has it’s little rules, but they only apply to your club. Dealing with the Pope is one thing within the organization, but justice and equity have different standards under the Constitution. These standards are found in the criminal and civil common laws of the states as constrained by said Constitution foremost and above all. By definition, the RCC’s actions meet criminal standards meriting prosecution. Or to quote Everett McGill’s take on such matters:
Pete: The Preacher said it absolved us.
Ulysses Everett McGill: For him, not for the law. I’m surprised at you, Pete, I gave you credit for more brains than Delmar.
Delmar O’Donnell: But they was witnesses that seen us redeemed.
Ulysses Everett McGill: That’s not the issue Delmar. Even if that did put you square with the Lord, the State of Mississippi’s a little more hard-nosed.
As to my flaws? I’ll explain it this way: there is a difference between having “irrational-based flaws and dealing with them” and “having irrational-based flaws and acting upon them in ways that effect others lives”. Do I have my flaws? Most certainly. Last time I checked I was not a supreme being. I haven’t completed that training but as soon as I learn to be completely free of the constraints of the laws of nature, I’ll be sure to drop EVERYONE a line. Simultaneously. What do you hope to accomplish by defending that your logic is flawed by pointing out that a human is a flawed creature by nature? That’ll earn you an interesting degree – M.O., Master of the Obvious. Even by your own traditions it is a logical consequence that if Jesus died for all mankind’s “sins” – which what is a sin if not a flaw in human nature taken to extremes – then that all of humankind is flawed is an implied true premise if not explicit.
John, John, John–
“Well, well, I never mentioned Elaine by name when I referred to Catholic school kids with anger issues, but she came out and owned up.”
There you go again trying to bait me. Silly boy! Thanks for the laugh!!! 🙂
Elaine,
Thanks for the heads up. I must have heard that from somewhere and just assumed it applied to all Catholics. Thanks for the help.
Jake–
You said: “We were addressing religious dogma, for example the fact that Catholics and some Christians believe in a kind of creation where the earth is 6000 years old.”
Catholics believe that the earth is 6,000 years old? Maybe some do–but definitely not all. I attended parochial school for twelve years. I wasn’t taught that. In fact, I learned about Darwin and evolution from the Sisters of Notre Dame. I also learned that stories in the Bible were allegories. My teachers believed in a Creator–but not creationism.
@ Catholic bashing clowns
Well, well, I never mentioned Elaine by name when I referred to Catholic school kids with anger issues, but she came out and owned up.
Here’s a heads up: you don’t promote “reason” by letting anger control the scope, extent, and content of your argument. A great example is Gingerbaker’s rage and a change of subject. (For your information, Gingerbaker, the Ratzinger letter of 2001 didn’t demand obstruction of civil justice — you, like the others, don’t get that the church’s own discipline of its own priests is an internal matter, and as an internal matter, it can deem any part of it secret — in the end defrocking or ex-communication would become public knowledge, by necessity, so secrecy in the process isn’t ipso facto a “cover up”)
The only point I wanted to make, which no one has refuted with the facts, is that Ratzinger did not “cover up” the case of Murphy. The Congregation of the Faith, which was under his direction, called for suspension of the Murphy trial and the submission of Murphy to a separate protocol for pedophiles – which if he endured would have resulted in direct apologies from him to the victims. Instead, Murphy died only weeks after this directive, and weeks after his death, the Archbishop of Milwaukee, Weakland (who was not in charge when Murphy committed the crimes before 1974) made a public apology on behalf of the Church regarding Murphy. These are the facts, and they dispel completely the charge of “cover up”.
Because you clowns can’t make useful distinctions, you can’t make any headway on this argument.
I agree that clerical pedophilia is a crime, that offending priests should be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the criminal law, and that the Church should impose severe discipline, including absolute removal from all clerical function as well as shaming, against such perpetrators.
But if you agree with those reasonable objectives (again, I think only satiation of rage, which won’t happen, would be the only satisfactory result for some of you clowns), then smearing the Pope with a false storyline will be counterproductive in achieving those objectives.
Of course, for those of you clowns who are anti-Catholic/ Christian ala Christopher Hitchens, smearing the Pope is your only objective anyway, and you could care less about the facts or the efficacy of faith.
Vince,
Stories this week that have mocked (or caused to be mocked) religion:
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/03/25/early-human-gives-a-finger-to-science-proto-human-discovery-shatters-theories-on-early-human-history/#more-21569
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/03/25/satanic-tweets-sharia-court-bans-discussion-of-amputation-punishment-on-twitter-and-facebook/#more-21554
Buddha,
I couldn’t agree more when it comes to a church being responsible for its own mismanagement–and mismanagement of a kind that leads to child abuse deserves a hefty portion of slamming.
However, that’s not the issue I nor Mespo was addressing. We were addressing religious dogma, for example the fact that Catholics and some Christians believe in a kind of creation where the earth is 6000 years old. Assert what you will about its origins, its blindness, its legitimacy. But it is no less reasonable than any base emotional need like the blind need to be right or to be listened to. It is no less reasonable than loyalty to a nation, a country, or a people. I’m quite confident you are guilty of at least those unreasonable things. And yet you find your “objective” assessment of a Catholic’s world-view legitimate for mockery because you have come to different conclusions, because you’ve “thought it through”? What good are you trying to accomplish by making a fool out of a Catholic, a Protestant, a Scientologist anyway? By pointing out the flaws in dogma, what do you hope to accomplish?
“John” said, “For your information, if you asked any clergyman that knows me if I am a clerical-bootlicker, as you allege, they’d laugh in your face.”
“John,” you are an anonymous poster here. How in the name of Fred is ANYONE going to be able to “ask any clergyman” who knows you anything about you? What a threat!
An anonymous poster asks us to rely on unnamed references. That is one of the dumbest postings I have ever seen anywhere on the net.
In the meantime, the comments by Mespo and Mike Appleton are very cogent and convincing. Nothing immunizes that particular church from criticism. Take a look at today’s Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html?hp for new information on the actions taken and not taken in Germany itself.
No one on this thread has criticized or demeaned any teachings or doctrines. The focus has been on the action and lack of action by persons in authority, and their performance has been abysmal by any reasonable standard.
As we learned many years ago in Watergate, it is not the crime, it is the cover-up.
Jake,
Reasonable requires reason which requires logic. Logic is something mespo possesses in abundance.
Dogma, from any source, requires only blind obedience. Critical thinkers are by their nature not prone to blind anything let alone obedience.
Does “an unexamined life is not worth living” ring a bell?
That wisdom was around long before Jesus and certainly before Paul said, “Kiss MY ring.”
There is no “one true Church” of anything. There are merely teachers and lessons. The lesson Jesus taught was “God is love”. The lesson the history of the Catholic church has taught us in that killing non-believers is acceptable (Inquisition, Crusades) and that preying upon children is a crime that should receive official sanction by cover-up and inaction.
Logical reasons for disapproving of any organization be they Catholics or Rotarians or the local chess club.
Belief?
Believe what you please. Just know others will form their opinions and judgments of you based on not only your words but your actions. This applies to organizations and individuals alike. And before you say, “judge not lest ye be judged”, I’ll clarify that lesson – if you judge others, be prepared to be judged yourself. And the RCC has judged that they themselves should be immune from laws designed to protect children. That others would find this irresponsible, counter to the teachings of the the prime wise teacher of the book they reference, and criminal are all results of their actions.
Mespo,
So you assert that what you believe is better than what Catholics believe? That you are so reasonable you are permitted to deride ANYTHING as long as you think it’s unreasonable?
Elaine M:
“I consider it an honor to be included in the same group with you and mespo.”
*************
And I, with you.
Mike A.–
“John, the editorial conclusion to your last comment, that Catholic bashers, including those with parochial school issues, should move on, is presumptuous.”
I assumed John was addressing his comment about people with anger issues from parochial school to me.
John also wrote:
“@ Elaine, Mike A., Mespo and other mespo-like clowns.”
I consider it an honor to be included in the same group with you and mespo.
**********
John,
Too bad you feel you have to stoop to personal attacks to try to win an argument. You accuse mespo of being a troll. You’re the troll in this thread attempting to bait people by calling them clowns, trolls, and Catholic bashers. Mespo, Mika A., other Turley regulars, and I have witnessed this technique before. It’s quite juvenile…don’t you think?
John:
As I have posted many times, the Church was aware of the problem in the 1960’s but chose to do nothing for 30 years. When they did it was too little, too late, and by then they had willingly sacrificed the innocence and psyche of thousands of children. Caught in their indifference or outright complicity they chose to lie, obfuscate, and secret away their sins. Pretty secular if you ask me, and indicative of your run of the mill hoodlum, and not the Vicar of Christ.
Had this been NAMBLA, we’d be in the streets with pitchforks, but since this organization claims some monopoly on sanctity, and wears medieval garb, we write a pass for barbarity. Go figure.
I concede your knowledge of canon law as I find it about as useful here as determining the number of angels dancing on the proverbial pinhead. That same sophist “law” condemned Galileo, but gave Hitler and every other Nazi save only Joseph Goebbels, a pass on excommunication. Joseph Goebbels, of course, committed the unpardonable sin of marrying a Protestant and was summarily excommunicated. Interesting take on morals there — 7 million Jews killed or marrying out of the faith. Like deciding to punish child rapists,a tough call for Rome and Ratzinger, it seems.
Also a nice summary of woe for His Popliness.
Of course, those guys at the BBC are notorious lying bastards.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8576268.stm
You are fracking delusional. And that is one HUGE case of projection in your statement – who is ignoring facts here, Catholic Trollboy?
We have the fracking letter he wrote, you moron.
Here are some facts for you:
http://www.slate.com/id/2248557/
@ Gingerbaker
Keep ignoring the facts. It will suit you well through life, if you have one.
@ Mespo
PS. For your information, if you asked any clergyman that knows me if I am a clerical-bootlicker, as you allege, they’d laugh in your face. I have given some of them double the s**t I bothered to direct your way here. Your stuff is small potatoes compared to some of them.
You are joking, right? Or maybe you have been living under a rock for the past month? Or maybe you are deliberately obtuse? Or are you congenitally dishonest?
There is no “Catholic-baiting” going on here. This case is mere icing on the cake in the case against the Pope, who is in big trouble over his actions in 2001, where he expressly forbid bishops in the RCC to go to the police, to cooperate with any outside investigations, to do anything but keep the fact that the church was harboring and protecting hundreds of cases of child rape from the public. They went so far as to coerce the victims to sign non disclosure agreements!
Your Pope aided and abetted child rapers!! How dare you try to point a finger of blame at anyone who merely reports on this disgraceful situation.