An
article written by Linda Goodstein and published in the New York Times on
March 25 alleged a coordinated attempt in the high reaches of the Vatican to
cover up the sex abuse crimes committed on deaf children from 1950 to 1974 in the United States by
Catholic priest Fr Lawrence Murphy. The article, close on the heels of similar
sex offences by church clergy in Europe, led to accusations that Pope Benedict
XVI was responsible for some of the cover-ups -- when he was Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger, first as Archbishop of Munich from 1977 to 1982, and then as Prefect
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF), before succeeding John
Paul II five years ago.
As is now
coming to light from other responsible commentators and reports, the Goodstein
report in the New York Times is flawed on many accounts and points to a
orchestrated attempt to bring down the Church, in particular Pope Benedict XVI.
The Church -- despite its faults and flaws over the centuries -- has never failed to be
the voice of the underprivileged and unafraid to speak out for the
poor and the truth of what is morally right in bringing justice and equality,
not only to them, but to all the world's men, women and children.
Under
Benedict XVI, the Church has especially shown more courage in exposing scourges perpetrated by men of ill-will – among others, the roots
of terrorism in fundamentalist Islamic teachings, the misleading notion that
condoms prevent the spread of Aids, homosexual practices and unions disobey natural law and reason, and the mass killing of innocent children through
abortion.
Pope
Benedict XVI’s efforts in these areas have earned the wrath of many, namely rabid
atheists who reject religion and the notion of God and spreading their false message every where, pro-abortionists, who like to see the unhindered slaughter of
innocent children in their mothers' wombs, and those who want to banish laws
preventing the marriage of homosexuals.
As Prefect
of the CDF, Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI now) was instrumental in changing the
Church’s laws and procedures to swiftly bring about the book on errant priests, with
particular attention given to those perpetrating sexual crimes. This has been
ignored by the New York Times’s Goodstein and other newspapers and reporters
of her ilk. We can only deduce they are part of a larger voice who want to shut
out Pope Benedict XVI and the Church’s mission in speaking for all men,
women and children who seek justice from an imperfect world, especially from
those who lust for power for themselves and a privileged few.
Below is an
article by Fr Raymond J. de Souza who gives a blow-by-blow account of the
inaccuracies presented in the New York Times article written by
Goodstein.
A Response to the New York Times by Fr. Raymond J.
de Souza
The New York
Times on March 25 (Edit: March 24 on NYT website) accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, of
intervening to prevent a priest, Fr. Lawrence Murphy, from facing penalties for
cases of sexual abuse of minors.
The story is
false. It is unsupported by its own documentation. Indeed, it gives every
indication of being part of a coordinated campaign against Pope Benedict,
rather than responsible journalism.
Before addressing the false substance of the story, the following circumstances are worthy of note:
• The New York Times story had two sources.
First, lawyers who currently have a civil suit pending against the Archdiocese
of Milwaukee. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Anderson, also has cases in the United
States Supreme Court pending against the Holy See. He has a direct financial
interest in the matter being reported.
• The second source was Archbishop Rembert
Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and
disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling
sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of
archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was
blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy
case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been
embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned
him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long
before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his
clandestine lover. He is prima facie not a reliable source.
• Laurie Goodstein, the author of the New York
Times story, has a recent history with Archbishop Weakland. Last year, upon the
release of the disgraced archbishop’s autobiography, she wrote an unusually
sympathetic story that buried all the most serious allegations against him (New
York Times, May 14, 2009).
• A demonstration took place in Rome on
Friday (Edit: March 26), coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might
ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very
documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is
one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting.
It’s
possible that bad sources could still provide the truth. But compromised
sources scream out for greater scrutiny. Instead of greater scrutiny of the
original story, however, news editors the world over simply parroted the New
York Times piece. Which leads us the more fundamental problem: The story is not
true, according to its own documentation.
The New York
Times made available on its own website the supporting documentation for the
story. In those documents, Cardinal Ratzinger himself does not take any of the
decisions that allegedly frustrated the trial. Letters are addressed to him;
responses come from his deputy. Even leaving that aside, though, the gravamen
of the charge — that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office impeded some investigation —
is proven utterly false.
The
documents show that the canonical trial or penal process against Father Murphy
was never stopped by anyone. In fact, it was only abandoned days before Father
Murphy died. Cardinal Ratzinger never took a decision in the case, according to
the documents. His deputy, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, suggested, given that
Father Murphy was in failing health and a canonical trial is a complicated
matter, that more expeditious means be used to remove him from all ministry.
To repeat:
The charge that Cardinal Ratzinger did anything wrong is unsupported by the
documentation on which the story was based. He does not appear in the record as
taking any decision. His office, in the person of his deputy, Archbishop
Bertone, agreed that there should be full canonical trial. When it became
apparent that Father Murphy was in failing health, Archbishop Bertone suggested
more expeditious means of removing him from any ministry.
Furthermore,
under canon law at the time, the principal responsibility for sexual-abuse
cases lay with the local bishop. Archbishop Weakland had from 1977 onwards the
responsibility of administering penalties to Father Murphy. He did nothing
until 1996. It was at that point that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office became
involved, and it subsequently did nothing to impede the local process.
The New York
Times flatly got the story wrong, according to its own evidence. Readers may
want to speculate on why.
Here is the
relevant timeline, drawn from the documents the New York Times posted on its
own website.
15 May 1974
Abuse by Fr.
Lawrence Murphy is alleged by a former student at St. John’s School for the
Deaf in Milwaukee. In fact, accusations against Father Murphy go back more than
a decade.
12 September
1974
Father
Murphy is granted an official “temporary sick leave” from St. John’s School for
the Deaf. He leaves Milwaukee and moves to northern Wisconsin, in the Diocese
of Superior, where he lives in a family home with his mother. He has no
official assignment from this point until his death in 1998. He does not return
to live in Milwaukee. No canonical penalties are pursued against him.
9 July 1980
Officials in
the Diocese of Superior write to officials in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee
about what ministry Father Murphy might undertake in Superior. Archbishop
Rembert Weakland, archbishop of Milwaukee since 1977, has been consulted and
says it would be unwise to have Father Murphy return to ministry with the deaf
community. There is no indication that Archbishop Weakland foresees any other
measures to be taken in the case.
17 July 1996
More than 20
years after the original abuse allegations, Archbishop Weakland writes to
Cardinal Ratzinger, claiming that he has only just discovered that Father
Murphy’s sexual abuse involved the sacrament of confession — a still more
serious canonical crime. The allegations about the abuse of the sacrament of
confession were in the original 1974 allegations. Weakland has been archbishop
of Milwaukee by this point for 19 years.
It should be
noted that for sexual-abuse charges, Archbishop Weakland could have proceeded
against Father Murphy at any time. The matter of solicitation in the sacrament
of confession required notifying Rome, but that too could have been done as
early as the 1970s.
10 September
1996
Father
Murphy is notified that a canonical trial will proceed against him. Until 2001,
the local bishop had authority to proceed in such trials. The Archdiocese of
Milwaukee is now beginning the trial. It is noteworthy that at this point, no
reply has been received from Rome indicating that Archbishop Weakland knew he
had that authority to proceed.
24 March
1997
Archbishop
Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, advises a canonical trial against Father Murphy.
14 May 1997
Archbishop
Weakland writes to Archbishop Bertone to say that the penal process against
Father Murphy has been launched, and notes that the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith has advised him to proceed even though the statute of
limitations has expired. In fact, there is no statute of limitations for
solicitation in the sacrament of confession.
Throughout
the rest of 1997 the preparatory phases of penal process or canonical trial is
underway. On 5 January 1998 the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee says
that an expedited trial should be concluded within a few months.
12 January
1998
Father
Murphy, now less than eight months away from his death, appeals to Cardinal
Ratzinger that, given his frail health, he be allowed to live out his days in
peace.
6 April 1998
Archbishop
Bertone, noting the frail health of Father Murphy and that there have been no
new charges in almost 25 years, recommends using pastoral measures to ensure
Father Murphy has no ministry, but without the full burden of a penal process.
It is only a suggestion, as the local bishop retains control.
13 May 1998
The Bishop
of Superior, where the process has been transferred to and where Father Murphy
has lived since 1974, rejects the suggestion for pastoral measures. Formal
pre-trial proceedings begin on 15 May 1998, continuing the process already
begun with the notification that had been issued in September 1996.
30 May 1998
Archbishop
Weakland, who is in Rome, meets with officials at the Congregation of the
Doctrine of the Faith, including Archbishop Bertone but not including Cardinal
Ratzinger, to discuss the case. The penal process is ongoing. No decision taken
to stop it, but given the difficulties of a trial after 25 years, other options
are explored that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry.
19 August
1998
Archbishop
Weakland writes that he has halted the canonical trial and penal process
against Father Murphy and has immediately begun the process to remove him from
ministry — a quicker option.
21 August
1998
Father
Murphy dies. His family defies the orders of Archbishop Weakland for a discreet
funeral.
— Father
Raymond J. de Souza is a chaplain at Queen's University in Ontario.
Further reading: Scoundrel Time(s) by George Weigel
No comments:
Post a Comment