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.
Buddha:
“got some new cookware for my birthday. It’s very nice. I can’t wait to cook in it every chance I get.”
*******************
What kind did you get? We’re an All-clad house here. I am a frustrated cook myself, you know. I did some cod tonight coated in smoked paprika and sautéed in butter. It was fine!
Buddha:
you are such an Epicurean 🙂
Mespo:
Have you ever heard of Sam Harris? Here is an introduction if you havent.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
mespo,
I agree in toto.
But it’s a lazy day here and I have been known to play with my food. Although I am about to resort to playing with real food for the evening. N.O. Style BBQ Shrimp to be precise. I got some new cookware for my birthday. It’s very nice. I can’t wait to cook in it every chance I get.
Jake and badtroll,
Again, you assume I care what propaganda trolls think.
I brought the logic.
Break it or be irrelevant.
So far, nothing is broken yet. It’s all there in plain language just waiting to be refuted with logic and evidence. But instead, you attack me and my methods.
Either of yours opinion of me is not only irrelevant, but personally laughable. Meaner and smarter people than you guys have tried to hurt my feelings or shame me or etc. in efforts to silence me and had just as much success as you two. Which would be zero. Keep attacking me and not the logics presented. It’s a weak form of ad hominem attack that’s used to distract when victory is not possible. Too bad for you two I have a long attention span. Is that it boys? Do you have attention span envy? Is that why you attack me instead of disproving me?
Aww, that’s just SO adorable! It’s amateur hour!
Especially you, bdaman. Your bigoted, confessed trollish nature is well documented here, Mr. “I’ll call the Jewish guy Christ Killer when I can’t win an argument”. While I told you recently there is a difference between you and the manifestly insane posters, that does not mean you’ve earned one bit of respect intellectually or ethically. I respect my cats more than any opinion you might have on most given subjects.
As to my effectiveness, I submit your playmate Byron as evidence. He came in here with the agenda to “piss off liberals”, by his own admission. The trouncings he got for his efforts, by myself, mespo, the Mikes and others quickly opened his mind.
You think I’m ineffective, Jake? I made it clear your opinion is both not on topic nor relevant to anyone but yourself.
There is only one relevant topic here boys, and it ain’t me or either of you.
It’s the criminal aider and abettor of pedophiles, the Pope.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/26/pope-further-implicated-i_n_514174.html
Buddha:
You’ve run into the squishy thinking type of poster who posits the argument that all ideas are equally valid because they are sincerely felt. The give-away with this type of sophistry is the assertion that, “Rely on science all you want. I agree with you. But you will prove nothing because it requires basic assumptions hardly different than those of any religion.”
Oh, really? I must assume a suspension of the laws of nature for miracles to occur (which, of course, forms the basis for every religion), but do I really have to assume the same for science? Isn’t science and its cousin, logic, the validation and clarification of the laws of nature? Such balderdash is easily shown for what it is, as you have demonstrated time and again. But like Chopra on the debate clip I posted, the words Jake uses sounds scientific and learned; the approach to equate all ideas seems fair; but at its core it is the cynical language of the con, and designed to take the cutting edge off the truth with notions of pseudo-intellectualism and fair-mindedness.
You see Jake is the icon of intentionally muddleheaded thinking which you have masterfully deconstructed.
Note this reply to my comment:
“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?”
Now Jake knows full well that this is exactly what I am saying but he feigns shocked inquisitiveness as if I should feel some shame and slink away because I called out an irrational belief. Jake’s MO is to play nanny and criticize you for calling a spade a spade and pointing out foolishness where you (and most other rational thinkers) find it. It’s an old trick to equate one bad idea with a good one and chastise the critic for the intellectual honesty to point out the difference. Spend all the time you want with this “tolerator of everything,” but I humbly suggest your talents are better served elsewhere.
Buddha:
I did not know that. But I suspect the Greeks were a tad bit more advanced than the Maya (maybe my chauvinistic side). But in any event the loss of knowledge like that is a tragedy.
Byron,
And for every book they saved, they destroyed one hundred. What was done to the Codices of the Maya alone is an inexcusable crime against understanding done in the name of religion. There is not telling what was lost. They had thousands of codices, folding books made of primitive paper. Sure, the Dominican priest Francisco Ximénez saved the Popol Vuh, a couple of others survived like the Dresden Codex, but this was the exception and Ximénez acted against orders. In the 16th Century the Conquistadors and priests destroyed most of the books, but they did particular damage in the Yucatan where the codices were destroyed on the order of Bishop Diego de Landa in July of 1562. The actions of the Spanish born de Landa, a Roman Catholic, a Franciscan to be precise and one of the first in the area, is directly responsible for destroying not only the written history of the Maya, but untold knowledge from nearly unequaled builders and unparalleled astronomers from an ancient and longstanding culture.
All in the name of the Mother Church.
A hand that strikes you repeatedly and then pats you on the head has still struck you.
, if you sincerely want to help the world, take a more fire-friendly tactic. If not, you’re blogging for yourself and yourself alone.
He has Jake. He’s a little pussy compared to how he use to be. I think your right about the blogging for yourself and yourself alone part.
And yeah, child molesting priests suck.
Elaine,
Precisely! Science was silly to the known world. Galileo et al were oppressed exactly because they used quantifiable research rather than mythos to talk to the world. They didn’t conform to what was culturally acceptable at the time. What the world thought then of science is largely how America’s non-religious think of religion now: with disdain. Which leads to the parallel that just because experiments verify what we think now has nothing to do with a cultural “truth.” To insult someone’s religion under the name of “convincing” them of a scientific truth is using one religion to convince another that their religion is stupid.
To say that a religion is unsound because it can’t be empirically proven is to exchange one set of assumptions for another. Science requires faith no less than religion does.
Buddha,
The fact that you can’t read a fair analysis of the topic shows me you are more biased and emotionally connected to this topic than you care to admit. For that, I think that this topic is no longer productive. However, I encourage you to reread my deconstruction of your insults. Rely on science all you want. I agree with you. But you will prove nothing because it requires basic assumptions hardly different than those of any religion.
Look back on your previous conversations and you’ll see all the people you’ve “woken up”: Not a single one who isn’t already “awake.” You are the one who has been largely disrespectful, kicked off the blog a couple times, or at least asked to sit it out for awhile. How effective do you really think you’ve been? Rather, if you sincerely want to help the world, take a more fire-friendly tactic. If not, you’re blogging for yourself and yourself alone. And nobody needs more emotional baggage on a blog.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603454_pf.html
Elaine:
they is the RCC and that is the works of Newton, Copernicus and Galileo. The Church wrote down the works of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. Aristotle’s works lead to William of Ockham’s work which lead to Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and others. Western civilization owes them a debt of gratitude although they dropped the ball on child molesting priests.
Here you go Swathmore Mom some more for ya.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xcpb5a_ythe-big-black-liey-author-debates_news?start=3
Byron–
“they also made all of that possible by re-introducing the world to the Greek philosophers.”
Not sure who and what “they” and “that” refer to, respectively.
Byron are you trying to say there are two sides to every story, kinda like the Olberman example above.
Jake,
A few being 3 or 4, that places us right in the middle of the Enlightenment, I’d say science was in pretty good standing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
Before that the mode of thought and experimentation that we’d call science, really didn’t exist to be either obscure or silly. I know that doesn’t really change your point, but I dig accuracy.
Elaine:
they also made all of that possible by re-introducing the world to the Greek philosophers. William of Ockham was a priest as was Thomas Aquinas.
If they had wanted to shut them down they could have. The Church was split into 2 factions so one could say that the enlightenment was a direct result of actions by the Church.
Jake–
“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.”
Science wasn’t a “silly way to think about things” a few hundred years or a millenium or two ago to people who had expansive, inquisitive minds–people who wanted to learn about the universe and the world in which they lived. It was the Catholic Church who tried to silence scientists like Galileo. Eratosthenes, Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton–and others like them–all just dabbled in silly stuff.
Bdaman:
didnt that c-sucker John Dingle just say it?
C as in name of a male rooster