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.
It’s taken along time Byron to put in place the administrative rules to control the people. Hummm where have I heard that before.
Jake,
Again, your assumptions are incorrect and save your fake “sympathy” for someone who has had their argument logically deconstructed. So far, you haven’t done that and if you were capable, I’d likely complement you on this issue.
But seriously, I don’t care what you think of me. Really.
What I do care about is a Pope directly implicated in the aiding and abetting of pedophilia, a crime in every civilized country.
And that’s what this thread is actually about. Not your feelings or opinions of me.
Circle up them wagons, RCC Troll Patrol! The natives have you surrounded.
Bdaman:
that was interesting (the response). I have a feeling that someone has been spreading nasty rumors for years.
The funny/sad thing is people like Swathmore Mom actually fall for that shit.
Bdaman:
that is pretty typical, pimping people of color. Although to NBC’s crdit they do have that woman on the today show that looks half asian.
Thanks Mike for giving the info. Info shared is info gained.
Buddha,
I feel sad for you. The last thing I was trying to TELL you to do was to stop expressing yourself. Are you so insecure that a candid discussion on mocking religion turns to a first amendment rant? To a personal attack?
Feel free to say anything you want.
You know what science was even a few hundred years ago? Science then was what religion is now—an obscure and silly way to think about things. Religion was the way stuff “actually” happened. This shows that the “rational” basis of deciding what is believable is culturally subjective. Sure, rebut religion all you want. Turn blue in the face. But know that you are spreading enmity and not making an iota of difference. I take that back: Maybe it WILL make a difference, when the GOP steps back in in 2012, fueled by their sense of entitlement and “oppression.”
So go ahead. Let the world know how much better you are than it is.
And the response
Saul Alinsky by Olberman
Jake, I just noticed that you acknowledged Elaine’s statement regarding the Catholic position on biblical literalism. Please ignore my post.
Jake, for what it’s worth, please note that it is not the official teaching of the Catholic Church that the earth is 6,000 years old or that the Bible is some sort of history book. Elaine correctly pointed that out to you and I wish to reiterate it since you acknowledge that you are not a Catholic. Belief in the literal truth of the Bible is primarily a tenet of various branches of Protestant fundamentalism.
Vince T.,
Thank you for your information and insight on this very grave matter. All’s I can say is OMG. In the Tort world does this quantify as a reckless disregard or indifference to the harm caused others.
“As archbishop of Munich and Freising from 1977 to 1982, the future pope approved the transfer to Munich for psychiatric treatment of a priest who had sexually abused boys. The priest, the Rev. Peter Hullermann, was quickly returned to pastoral work with children. This month, a subordinate took responsibility for the decision, although internal church documents show that Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was copied on a memorandum informing him of the transfer. Benedict has not addressed the issue.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/europe/27vatican.html?hpw
Do not falsely assume that I am addressing your illogics for your sole benefit and my entertainment alone.
I don’t care if you’re Catholic or not. An unproven belief that cannot withstand challenge is a weak sister to empirical logic. You can believe or disbelieve gravity if that is your choice. Get back to me on how disbelief of the verifiable works out for you. Once they take off the body cast.
Your approval of my methods is simply not required. There is no simpler message than that.
You don’t like it? I don’t care. You think I’m irrational in either person or method? I’m thinking in this forum you’ll find that more than one regular poster will vouch for my clarity of thought and precision so if you just want to test consensus on that issue, be my guest. Your opinion of me personally and/or my methods is exactly that – your opinions – and they are free for me to ignore as much as you are free to ignore my posts if they offend. This is a free speech zone. Offense is expected.
You seem to think a belief is somehow exempt from ridicule and logical dissection simply by the nature of being a belief?
Isn’t that quaint. Perfectly illogical, but quaint.
You don’t like the games here, you’re free to seek a more accommodating unquestionably subservient to belief forum if you like but this forum is a free speech forum. The only person with the power to silence me or make me leave is the Prof. He has but to ask as this is his playground. Not yours, not mine. He has my e-mail. He can tell me to stop at any time (although he’d likely ask) and I comply. This is a time demonstrated fact. You on the other hand, can ask or even tell me to stop, but as I’ve never seen anyone have any luck with that strategy at all.
Ask any of the others if you like.
Other than the rules of the house (which I obey although occasionally transgress in the name of humor), any regular reader and poster will confirm that I’ll do what I damn well please, your approval not withstanding.
try again.
Buddha,
I’m not entirely sure you are talking to me or not. The change in tone, temperament, civility, and topic matter seems to suggest you were talking to another poster. But I don’t see anybody else you could have been addressing. I’ll assume for now that you were talking to me.
We were talking about mocking religious belief, not the Catholic Church. If you can’t defend the fact that your making fun of religion is impotent, don’t get mad at me and play the ad hominem game.
I’m not Catholic. Molesters should take everything thrown at them. Also, just to reiterate my point, making fun of religion is as irrational as you claim the believers to be.
I should also point out in fairness before you answer that if you think you speak for all Catholics in your disapproval, I’m not only pretty sure that I can find at least one who would disagree with your disapproval, I’d be very shocked that your English is this good, Herr Pope.
Disagree in application all you like. I don’t work for either you or the Pope. Your lot unhappy with plummeting attendance numbers? http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-11-07-church-main_x.htm Take it up with God’s Emissary On Earth, the Pope, and look to the actions of your own for blame if that is what you wish to assess. Attacking the rational secularism that is replacing your out-modded form of operation is a natural consequence of the organizations failure to provide more benefit than harm to your congregations. Cause and effect. Here’s the lesson zealous denial prevents from connecting: some people may fear God, but everyone except the insane HATES child molesters more. There is no PR that can spin any organization out of that hole. mespo is correct. If these were the actions of NAMBLA, there would be people dragged into the the street and hung by angry mobs. Claiming an unprovable invisible force gives you sanction isn’t going to fly either. Protecting children is a mostly hardwired primal instinct. Cause and effect? I represent neither. I am but consequence. My reaction to the horrors perpetrated by your clergy is mocking sarcasm and ridicule. You don’t like it? I’m pretty sure I don’t care. There is a cure for your dilemma though.
You have the option of not reading my posts if they are soooo offensive to your Catholic sensibilities. The interesting thing about lessons is that they are like all free speech: you are free to ignore them.
Go right on, ignore me. I won’t be offended. Do not falsely assume that I am addressing your illogics for your sole benefit and my entertainment alone.
This is the Internet. Most of the world is the potential audience. A lesson missed by one is a lesson learned by another. I am patient like stone and as flexible as water. Marcus Aurelius said, “I merely seek the truth, by which no man was ever harmed.” If you don’t like my truths or my consequences, or yea verily even my opinions, you can take the Lord’s own advice to turn the other cheek and ignore me. Love your enemy. For when you love your enemy they cease to be your enemy.
Or not.
But if you did that, how could you divide people into the chosen and the other? Oh my. That’ll put a damper on proselytizing if you can’t make up the teams and collect membership dues!
Your approval is not required.
It impacts my choice in methods and tools not an iota.
Without authority, you are another average voice screaming into the abyss of twitter, facebook, myspace, Turley’s blog without listening for anything to come back.
Ahh, I see. And that’s a good point. Mockery can provide educational value. But I disagree in its application. Political parties, the religious, scientists, they’re all entrenched because people think the way you do. There is more enmity between all of these exactly for that kind of thinking. The enmity leads to infighting, which leads to irrationality, which leads to stuff like the way the current GOP is running.
Maybe it’s cliche, but you definitely catch more flies with honey instead of vinegar. And those that CAN use vinegar usually didn’t manage to convince until YEARS after they lived. Shakespeare a prime example.
The point:
1. We don’t have years to wait to make the changes we need now. 2. Your doctrine is not enabling or helpful to anybody except the Machiavellian businessmen who aren’t reading.
3. You have no authority to trump anyone else’s irrationality. That’s not to say you are irrational. But your logic isn’t more rational than the average religious person’s.
Why do you think I cannot? Are not all lessons shared information?
Mockery is just a valuable a teaching tool as parody, satire, adversarial debate, logical reductionism, having a casual conversation over coffee, and oh does that list go on and on.
Mockery however, like all forms of parody and satire, is by its very nature provocative. To break apart ossified thought processes requires provocation for what is provocation if not challenge. If that provocation elicits a reaction, then that shows a disruption in continuity, something that challenges the audiences preconceptions. Tools have their purposes even in teaching. That Oscar Wilde was correct when stating “Seriousness is the last refuge of the shallow” is on display in a free speech society every day. Humorless people? What can I say other than there is no more humorless person than a terrorist. Lots actually, but that kind of cuts to the quick