Do you think Pope Benedict will step down?

[jld]

Is this even possible?

[....]

No. I highly doubt it. If he did, Boy, would it would be the talk of the year.

 

I've been following this story with interest also... :001_huh:

[HRAAB]

NO!

[OnTheBrink]

Why would he? Could someone link me to a story?

[CatMomof3]

No!

[Ellie]

Absolutely not. There's no reason that he should. He was not culpable in any way and is not trying to cover up anything now.

[hornblower]

SolaMichella - just one story of many on google news about this topic:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/7521227/Pope-accused-of-covering-up-abuse-of-200-boys.html

 

He should but I don't think he will.

[dangermom]

I don't think Popes step down. Besides, it looks like the problem has been endemic in the system; can you find someone who isn't touched by it? At least he's addressing it now.

[hornblower]

I don't think Popes step down.

 

Popes can resign.

http://atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/resignations.htm (I don't know why this article is filed under atheism but it does explain the canon law on this quite well.)

[dangermom]

Sure, they can, but I don't think they do mostly. Not for the last 800 years or so.

[K&Rs Mom]

Absolutely not. There's no reason that he should. He was not culpable in any way and is not trying to cover up anything now.

 

:iagree: That's like saying the president should step down whenever a city mayor has an affair.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

He was informed that a priest was hurting children and should never be allowed to work with children again. Instead of firing him (or whatever you call firing a priest) he moved him to another parish, putting him in a position to hurt children again.....which he DID! The Pope IS culpable!

 

And, odd...when I first posted a thread on this subject the day the story broke it was deleted for "pot stirring". :glare:

[hornblower]

:iagree: That's like saying the president should step down whenever a city mayor has an affair.

 

I think it's a little different now. Not sure if you're following the latest but the allegations are that when he was still Cardinal he was responsible for dealing with the most serious sins of clergy, he was made aware of abuse & was complicit in covering it up.

[justamouse]

200 deaf boys sexually abused. My brain cannot even wrap around that pain and suffering. It makes me want to sob all day.

 

I hope he does step down, but I don't think he will. I hope for the families of those children, he does.

[cougarmom4]

That's like saying the president should step down whenever a city mayor has an affair.

 

Except having an affair isn't an illegal activity...umm, molesting kids is. And if the president knew a mayor was molesting 200 KIDS, did little about it legally or discipline-wise, and then moved him to another city to molest more...you better believe that president would be in trouble.

Edited March 26, 2010 by cougarmom4

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?scp=1&sq=vatican&st=cse This article sums up what occurred.

[asta]

One tidbit that many in the press appear to be missing (even as they are writing it down, strangely) is that, while Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 until 2005, the Vatican didn't even receive notice that Fr. Murphy was an issue until 1996 - two years before the man died:

 

Ratzinger's deputy initiated disciplinary proceedings against Murphy, but it was halted after the priest wrote to the future pontiff directly, appealing for clemency.

 

"I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood," Murphy wrote. "I ask your kind assistance in this matter."

 

Something people seem to be missing in all of this is that Pope Benedict was NOT THE POPE. Pope John Paul II was. If JP wanted this guy defrocked, it was HIS job to have him defrocked, NOT a Cardinal's. Cardinals do not defrock priests, Popes do.

 

I realize there is some weird cult of personality surrounding JPII, but people need to wake up and smell the coffee about what went on during his time at the Holy See. It was (and is) Ratzinger/Benedict who started investigating all of these abuse allegations. It is Benedict who is defrocking priests. It is Benedict who is quietly saying to bishops and cardinals "I know you'll do the right thing" -- which is Pope speak for "I'll see your resignation letter on my desk on Monday" (anyone read the news out of Ireland this week?).

 

Finally (can you tell I have a burr under my saddle about this one?) - Ratzinger didn't "issue an edict in 2001 instructing Catholic bishops around the world to report all child abuse cases to the Vatican under strict secrecy, rather than refer them to the police." That is an oversimplification. There were a great deal of accusations going on when all of this hit the press (and don't think I'm defending this - I left the church over it). Ratzinger commenced a massive internal investigation of the clergy in 2001. He wanted to insure that there weren't specious accusations being made against perfectly innocent people out of spite. In the American Church alone, whole parishes were being painted with one big brush of "pedophile" for some old guy who had already died. Was it right what had happened to those kids? Of course not. But how was it right to then just assume everyone else was bad, too? He wanted to make sure that the bad people were bad, and that they went to jail, not to another parish. And guess what? They did go to jail. He just didn't bother advertising it. (As an aside: strangely, the American Catholic Church insists that the edict was to not turn priests over to law enforcement. Other nations have not expressed this same sentiment in the press.)

 

No amount of money, closing parishes, or apologies is ever going to give someone their childhood back. By the same token, if a person wants to be angry, no documents showing contrary information, imprisoned individuals, policy changes or... dead people are going to be a salve.

 

If anyone is ever interested in what the Pope actually says (versus what comes out in the news) or what edicts, etc. have been given, I'd advise going to the Vatican's website. It has a great search engine.

 

 

asta

 

 

ETA: From the NYT article

“I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood,” Father Murphy wrote near the end of his life to Cardinal Ratzinger. “I ask your kind assistance in this matter.” The files contain no response from Cardinal Ratzinger.

The modern press is assuming the letter even got to him. Or that it was sent by an Archbishop who resigned after using church funds to pay off a lover.

Edited March 26, 2010 by asta

[danybug]

I think he should step down. Covering up such an atrocity is enough in itself to merit that he should not be the leader of a worldwide religion. Whether it was actual sneaky covering up or just ignoring the situation, how can you be expected to be the grandest leader of a worldwide religion and have stood by and protected the violator.

 

Sorry, I just have such strong feelings about this. I just can't overlook the Catholic Church covering up thousands of abuse cases in the last decades and not making swift and lasting judgements in holding priests accountable.

[elizabeth]

200 deaf boys sexually abused. My brain cannot even wrap around that pain and suffering. It makes me want to sob all day.

 

I hope he does step down, but I don't think he will. I hope for the families of those children, he does.

 

You are not alone in this sentiment here is a wonderful editorial from The National Catholic Reporter.

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/credibility-gap-pope-needs-answer-questions

I find it particularly disturbing that the powers that be have promoted a culture of blaming the sexual abuse of children on the so called"violet" seminaries. It is time for accountability and contrition.

[justamouse]

Asta, I hope you're right.

[unsinkable]

He was informed that a priest was hurting children and should never be allowed to work with children again. Instead of firing him (or whatever you call firing a priest) he moved him to another parish, putting him in a position to hurt children again.....which he DID! The Pope IS culpable!

 

And, odd...when I first posted a thread on this subject the day the story broke it was deleted for "pot stirring". :glare:

 

You have the details of this particular case wrong.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

You have the details of this particular case wrong.

 

 

:confused:

 

Quote from the article:

 

 

"Instead of being disciplined, Father Murphy was quietly moved by Archbishop William E. Cousins of Milwaukee to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes, schools and, as one lawsuit charges, a juvenile detention center."

[K&Rs Mom]

Except having an affair isn't an illegal activity...umm, molesting kids is. And if the president knew a mayor was molesting 200 KIDS, did little about it legally or discipline-wise, and then moved him to another city to molest more...you better believe that president would be in trouble.

 

You're right, bad analogy - how about this: we don't expect the secretary of education to step down every time a teacher molests students. I'm not saying any of this is okay, just that it's a double standard.

[cougarmom4]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?scp=1&sq=vatican&st=cse This article sums up what occurred.

 

I am thoroughly disgusted. I don't see how this issue can be so rampant and it just appears to be accepted by people?!@? What in the world? How can ANY of this just be ignored? Why aren't ALL of these priests (every.single.one.who.has.been.accused) on trial and then serving time?!? There are serious issues here. And it's not like a rare occurence--that's what gets me. Oh, yeah...Father XYZ only molested 10 kids...but he says he's sorry, so we'll just move him to this other neighborhood. I'm sure he feels bad and will never do it again.

 

I just don't get it.

[elizabeth]

You're right, bad analogy - how about this: we don't expect the secretary of education to step down every time a teacher molests students. I'm not saying any of this is okay, just that it's a double standard.

 

The Secretary of Eduction does not have the power to remove the teacher directly. Please read the article from the NYTimes that I linked in a previous post to see where your analogy does not fit the facts of this case .

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?scp=1&sq=vatican&st=cse

[cougarmom4]

You're right, bad analogy - how about this: we don't expect the secretary of education to step down every time a teacher molests students. I'm not saying any of this is okay, just that it's a double standard.

 

Unless that secretary of education KNEW what was going on and didn't enforce appropriate consequences.

As far as it being a double standard, I'll disagree there, too. It appears there is NO standard. Ah, it's a priest...it's okay, we'll let him get away with it this time.

Edited March 26, 2010 by cougarmom4

[ChrisB]

Unfortunately, the NYTimes appears to have an agenda which is driving their reporting of this issue (no surprise there, though); I highly encourage anyone remotely interested in this topic to read the Vatican's responses; you can find them in many places... I'll link to two posts at a Church news blog, both of which contain the respective responses in full.

 

The first reply to the initial NYTimes story earlier this week:

 

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2010/03/times-warned-vatican-failed.html

 

 

The second, a commentary piece in the Vatican's daily newspaper:

 

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2010/03/evident-and-despicable-intent.html

 

Look at how Pope Benedict has handled the events surrounding Ireland's scandal; look at his meetings with abuse victims here in the US in 2008; the idea that he's involved in a cover-up simply isn't warranted by the facts.

 

The NYTimes hasn't been friendly to the Vatican... ever? Why should we trust them to accurately report things now? Incidentally, This story (the Wisconsin priest) is by no means new news... the Milwaukee paper had a story on it a few years ago.

 

I'd also highly recommend reading the commentary from Archbishop Dolan in New York, found on his blog here: http://blog.archny.org/.

[Crimson Wife]

Sorry, I just have such strong feelings about this. I just can't overlook the Catholic Church covering up thousands of abuse cases in the last decades and not making swift and lasting judgements in holding priests accountable.

 

Are you aware that Catholic priests have NO higher a rate of pedophilia than clergy of other Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths? There are just greater numbers of Catholic priests so there are numerically more "bad apples". Additionally, the centralized nature of the Church makes it much easier to track the problem.

 

And clergy of all faiths have a LOWER rate of child abuse than similar "helping" professions like teachers, sports coaches, Scout leaders, etc.

 

The reason there is so much publicity surrounding the tiny fraction of "bad apple" Catholic priests is because of anti-Catholicism. Many journalists and editors are ex-Catholics and they often have a grudge against the Church.

[unsinkable]

:confused:

 

Quote from the article:

 

 

"Instead of being disciplined, Father Murphy was quietly moved by Archbishop William E. Cousins of Milwaukee to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes, schools and, as one lawsuit charges, a juvenile detention center."

 

This thread is about the Pope stepping down based upon what and when the Pope knew about this case. You wrote: He was informed that a priest was hurting children and should never be allowed to work with children again. Instead of firing him (or whatever you call firing a priest) he moved him to another parish, putting him in a position to hurt children again.....which he DID! The Pope IS culpable!

 

From the UK article:

The Pope was alerted to the claims in 1996, when as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger he was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's department for dealing with particularly grave sins.

 

It said that reports about Murphy's paedophilia first emerged in the 1970s but were not reported to the Vatican until more than 20 years later.

 

The Vatican at that point batted the issue back to the archbishop of Milwaukee, suggesting only that he "restrict Father Murphy's public ministry and require that he accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts".

 

Cardinal Ratzinger, who led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 until 2005, when he was elected pope, had taken into account the fact that Murphy was "elderly and in very poor health ... and (that) no allegations of abuse had been reported in over 20 years," the Vatican statement said. Murphy died in 1998, still a priest.

 

The priest hadn't been accused of molestation in 20 years by the time Cardinal Ratzinger found out.

[ChrisB]

 

"Instead of being disciplined, Father Murphy was quietly moved by Archbishop William E. Cousins of Milwaukee to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes, schools and, as one lawsuit charges, a juvenile detention center."

 

No one disputes that; the issue is what did Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) know, and when did he know it. As others have already pointed out, his department at the Vatican wasn't even informed of the issue until the late 90's, when the abuse happened before and during the 70's.

 

What this priest did is despicable, and how he was handled (being moved elsewhere) was as well. But the facts simply don't warrant blaming Ratzinger/Benedict, as the Times seems to want us to do.

[Crimson Wife]

And it's not like a rare occurence--that's what gets me.

 

Yes, it is. The overwhelming majority of Catholic priests have NEVER abused a child. And as I stated before, the rate is NO HIGHER than clergy of other Christian denominations or non-Christian faiths.

[elizabeth]

I am thoroughly disgusted. I don't see how this issue can be so rampant and it just appears to be accepted by people?!@? What in the world? How can ANY of this just be ignored? Why aren't ALL of these priests (every.single.one.who.has.been.accused) on trial and then serving time?!? There are serious issues here. And it's not like a rare occurence--that's what gets me. Oh, yeah...Father XYZ only molested 10 kids...but he says he's sorry, so we'll just move him to this other neighborhood. I'm sure he feels bad and will never do it again.

 

I just don't get it.

 

I completely agree. Why not on trial??For years the powers that be persuaded peole they would handle it internally and no to go to the police. The Church also fought the extension of statutes of limitation which effectively barred prosecution due to the length of time that had passed between the allegation of crime and the adult coming forward to tell the truth. Many of my fellow counselors at law have worked at/for defending the church from claims. We do not speak any longer.

[ChrisB]

I completely agree. Why not on trial??

 

You'd have to ask the civil authorities that... they *did* investigate, and for whatever reason didn't pursue charges. If that was because local church authorities urged them not to, they too bear responsibility. But in this case, we do know that civil authorities were aware, did investigate, and did not press charges.

[Sputterduck]

You're right, bad analogy - how about this: we don't expect the secretary of education to step down every time a teacher molests students. I'm not saying any of this is okay, just that it's a double standard.

 

Yes. If he had the teacher quietly moved to a different school where he was freely around other children.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I stand corrected.

 

It appears that Archbishop Cousins of Milwaukee should have been disciplined for moving the pedophile priest.

 

 

I still maintain, however, that when the Pope found out (and I realize he wasn't the Pope at the time, but can't remember how to spell his other last name) he did seem to blow it off. "Well, he is old and about to die and hasn't hurt anybody in over 20 years." It still seems wrong and like somebody dropped the ball, even if I'm getting the names wrong.

[LauraGB]

Are we talking about Rev. Hullermann or about Rev. Murphy? Because Murphy is dead - no going after him. Or about the travesty in general?

 

And, no, I don't think we'll see the Pope step down (not saying I agree with this, just saying I don't see it happening. At all.)

[dirty ethel rackham]

You are not alone in this sentiment here is a wonderful editorial from The National Catholic Reporter.

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/credibility-gap-pope-needs-answer-questions

I find it particularly disturbing that the powers that be have promoted a culture of blaming the sexual abuse of children on the so called"violet" seminaries. It is time for accountability and contrition.

 

It was not just the Catholic Church that had this attitude, but it was society, in general. Children were rarely believed, and, if they were, they were blamed for somehow initiating the relationship. How many mothers did not believe their daughters when they were abused by the live-in boyfriend? This still goes on.

 

My faith life was scarred by abusive priests - not personally abused, but knew people who were, but mostly by the bishops who swept it under the rug and transferred the priests where they could do more harm. Many will say that they were following the advice of psychiatrists and such, but you would think that after they would get a clue that the recidivism rate was extremely high.

 

Our diocese was hit badly by this and a great deal of effort has been put into healing and open-ness.

[elizabeth]

You'd have to ask the civil authorities that... they *did* investigate, and for whatever reason didn't pursue charges. If that was because local church authorities urged them not to, they too bear responsibility. But in this case, we do know that civil authorities were aware, did investigate, and did not press charges.

 

http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p1 I find no evidence of civil authorities being notified at the time of the alleged crime.

[unsinkable]

It was not just the Catholic Church that had this attitude, but it was society, in general. Children were rarely believed, and, if they were, they were blamed for somehow initiating the relationship. How many mothers did not believe their daughters when they were abused by the live-in boyfriend? This still goes on.

 

My faith life was scarred by abusive priests - not personally abused, but knew people who were, but mostly by the bishops who swept it under the rug and transferred the priests where they could do more harm. Many will say that they were following the advice of psychiatrists and such, but you would think that after they would get a clue that the recidivism rate was extremely high.

 

Our diocese was hit badly by this and a great deal of effort has been put into healing and open-ness.

 

How did society handle sex abuse & child & spouse abuse in the 60s & 70s?

Not well, in my own personal, painful experience.

How many kids, wives, families heard, "Dad's sorry and he's not going to do it anymore" ?

[Sputterduck]

The church covering things up kinda reminds me of the Pearls.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I am thoroughly disgusted. I don't see how this issue can be so rampant and it just appears to be accepted by people?!@? What in the world? How can ANY of this just be ignored? Why aren't ALL of these priests (every.single.one.who.has.been.accused) on trial and then serving time?!? There are serious issues here. And it's not like a rare occurence--that's what gets me. Oh, yeah...Father XYZ only molested 10 kids...but he says he's sorry, so we'll just move him to this other neighborhood. I'm sure he feels bad and will never do it again.

 

I just don't get it.

 

As someone who went to a parish that had several abusive priests, I can give a little perspective. Most of these abuse cases that were "covered up" happened in the 1970's. While I do place most of the blame on the bishops who did nothing to protect children from known abusive priests, parents also had a vested interest in making sure that things were not made public. If anyone found out who made an allegation, society at the time not only blamed the child, but would treat the child as damaged goods and a possible homosexual, which would have been the kiss of death for a child. If something was ever made public, the parents had no choice but to move and start a new life. Think about the stigma to female rape victims at the time and multiply that by about a thousand for a boy who was abused.

 

Even for children abused by family members, trials were extremely RARE. The courts did not recognize children as reliable witnesses, thus prosecutions were rare.

 

One priest from our parish was finally indicted and brought to trial - after about 20 years of abusing kids. His own family did not turn him in because of the stigma to those children who came forward. The niece of this priest, whose children were abused by him, spared the accusing child of the ordeal of a trial by using her trump card - threatening to tell this priest's mother what he had done. The priest confessed and was defrocked (I can't remember if this was before or after the criminal case.)

 

ETA: I don't know where you get the idea that there is no outrage. Where have you been for the last 10 years. There is plenty of outrage.

Edited March 26, 2010 by dirty ethel rackham

[iwka]

http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/03/pedophile-priests.html

[Renee in NC]

:confused:

 

Quote from the article:

 

 

"Instead of being disciplined, Father Murphy was quietly moved by Archbishop William E. Cousins of Milwaukee to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes, schools and, as one lawsuit charges, a juvenile detention center."

 

Okay, here is what I get after reading the documents:

 

Father Murphy was removed from the deaf school due to allegations and confessed abuse that occurred from 1950-1974. The Archbishop of Milwaulkee at the time knew of the allegations and handled the case (however badly.) He was not removed from the priesthood, but neither was he assigned anywhere. He filled in when a substitute priest was needed, acted as a sign language interpreter, etc.

 

The abuse was referred to civil authorities in 1974, but the case never went forward.

 

The Archbishop involved died in 1988.

 

The new Archbishop found out about the allegations in 1996 and started an investigation. As part of that investigation it was determined that the statute of limitations had passed (based on the old norms for when the abuse occurred) so they Archbishop wrote to then Cardinal Ratzinger to ask permission to try him based on today's tougher canon laws.

 

The office gave him permission as long as all other avenues had been exhausted. At this time, it is 1998. As it moved to trial, the priest who committed the abuse died.

 

We are now in 2010 and someone has brought this up as somehow being the Pope's fault? I am really not sure - the Office of the Congregation allowed the canon trial to move forward despite a technicality.

 

Did I miss anything?

[Renee in NC]

This thread is about the Pope stepping down based upon what and when the Pope knew about this case. You wrote: He was informed that a priest was hurting children and should never be allowed to work with children again. Instead of firing him (or whatever you call firing a priest) he moved him to another parish, putting him in a position to hurt children again.....which he DID! The Pope IS culpable!

 

From the UK article:

The Pope was alerted to the claims in 1996, when as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger he was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's department for dealing with particularly grave sins.

 

It said that reports about Murphy's paedophilia first emerged in the 1970s but were not reported to the Vatican until more than 20 years later.

 

The Vatican at that point batted the issue back to the archbishop of Milwaukee, suggesting only that he "restrict Father Murphy's public ministry and require that he accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts".

 

Cardinal Ratzinger, who led the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 until 2005, when he was elected pope, had taken into account the fact that Murphy was "elderly and in very poor health ... and (that) no allegations of abuse had been reported in over 20 years," the Vatican statement said. Murphy died in 1998, still a priest.

 

The priest hadn't been accused of molestation in 20 years by the time Cardinal Ratzinger found out.

 

Not only that, but the trial *was* allowed to continue, despite the statute of limitations, but the priest DIED before he could be tried.

[ChrisB]

http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p1 I find no evidence of civil authorities being notified at the time of the alleged crime.

 

That's why we can't rely solely on the word of the Times. This is from the first Vatican response:

"During the mid-1970s, some of Fr. Murphy’s victims reported his abuse to civil authorities, who investigated him at that time; however, according to news reports, that investigation was dropped."

 

And if you don't believe the Vatican's response, the following is from a 2006 story in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

 

"Murphy's dark side might never have surfaced if not for Bolger, Budzinski and Gary Smith [some of the earlier victims], who began having flashbacks in their 20s about the sexual abuse and started sharing their experiences with each other. In 1974, they decided it was time to tell their secret. They wanted to save other deaf boys from being molested by Murphy. One year earlier, a deaf boy went to the St. Francis Police Department to report that Murphy molested him, records show. The case was dropped after Murphy told police the boy was mentally retarded, according to a deaf teacher who was at the school at the time. [..] As the oldest member of the group, Bolger [one of the victims] arranged for several adult victims to go to the Milwaukee County district attorney's office and the St. Francis Police Department to file complaints against Murphy. The men communicated by printing their statements on paper and then pushing them over the desk to the detectives, who wrote back with more questions. Murphy denied the allegations, and the police investigation was dropped" (emphasis mine).

 

So, what does the fact that the NYTimes omits this (rather pertinent) information say? Again, I don't think the investigation *should* have been dropped, but it was, yet the "paper of record" neglects to tells that.

Edited March 26, 2010 by ChrisB

[LauraGB]

Here is the news clip/video I saw on our local news last night (it is local news here). There is a lot of info, I think, in there, especially the part where Fr. Murphy tells the now adult victims to (paraphrasing) "go away...that was a long time ago..."

 

ETA It states at the bottom of the article that Arch Bishop Weakland (who was corresponding with the Vatican about Murphy) admitted to paying $450k to keep secret abuse allegations about himself.

 

By Cardinal Ratzinger not responding in this case, I get a strong sense of "If I ignore it, it will go away."

Edited March 26, 2010 by LauraGB

[lionfamily1999]

One tidbit that many in the press appear to be missing (even as they are writing it down, strangely) is that, while Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 until 2005, the Vatican didn't even receive notice that Fr. Murphy was an issue until 1996 - two years before the man died:

 

 

 

Something people seem to be missing in all of this is that Pope Benedict was NOT THE POPE. Pope John Paul II was. If JP wanted this guy defrocked, it was HIS job to have him defrocked, NOT a Cardinal's. Cardinals do not defrock priests, Popes do.

 

I realize there is some weird cult of personality surrounding JPII, but people need to wake up and smell the coffee about what went on during his time at the Holy See. It was (and is) Ratzinger/Benedict who started investigating all of these abuse allegations. It is Benedict who is defrocking priests. It is Benedict who is quietly saying to bishops and cardinals "I know you'll do the right thing" -- which is Pope speak for "I'll see your resignation letter on my desk on Monday" (anyone read the news out of Ireland this week?).

 

Finally (can you tell I have a burr under my saddle about this one?) - Ratzinger didn't "issue an edict in 2001 instructing Catholic bishops around the world to report all child abuse cases to the Vatican under strict secrecy, rather than refer them to the police." That is an oversimplification. There were a great deal of accusations going on when all of this hit the press (and don't think I'm defending this - I left the church over it). Ratzinger commenced a massive internal investigation of the clergy in 2001. He wanted to insure that there weren't specious accusations being made against perfectly innocent people out of spite. In the American Church alone, whole parishes were being painted with one big brush of "pedophile" for some old guy who had already died. Was it right what had happened to those kids? Of course not. But how was it right to then just assume everyone else was bad, too? He wanted to make sure that the bad people were bad, and that they went to jail, not to another parish. And guess what? They did go to jail. He just didn't bother advertising it. (As an aside: strangely, the American Catholic Church insists that the edict was to not turn priests over to law enforcement. Other nations have not expressed this same sentiment in the press.)

 

No amount of money, closing parishes, or apologies is ever going to give someone their childhood back. By the same token, if a person wants to be angry, no documents showing contrary information, imprisoned individuals, policy changes or... dead people are going to be a salve.

 

If anyone is ever interested in what the Pope actually says (versus what comes out in the news) or what edicts, etc. have been given, I'd advise going to the Vatican's website. It has a great search engine.

 

 

asta

 

 

ETA: From the NYT article

 

The modern press is assuming the letter even got to him. Or that it was sent by an Archbishop who resigned after using church funds to pay off a lover.

Thank you. (I thought this post bore repeating. For some of us that aren't Catholic, the dynamics - who can fire whom &tc - are a mystery and that makes it easy to jump to conclusions - he should've done something. I appreciate the time you took to write this and have to say, you stopped my knee jerk reaction, mid jerk. In case anyone wonders if this ever actually happens on here... I've changed my opinion. This Pope sounds like a good man to me.)

You'd have to ask the civil authorities that... they *did* investigate, and for whatever reason didn't pursue charges. If that was because local church authorities urged them not to, they too bear responsibility. But in this case, we do know that civil authorities were aware, did investigate, and did not press charges.

I wonder why charges were never pressed?

http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2010/03/pedophile-priests.html

Thank you.

[cathmom]

I'd rather American bishops who seem unable to properly do their jobs step down than the Pope.

[Parrothead]

I wonder why charges were never pressed?

 

 

See Dirty Ethel Rackman's post at the top of the page.

 

At that time there was a stigma attached to the victim of sexual abuse - any abuse, either gender, but the stigma was so much worse for males.

 

That said the parents of the children could even have demanded the case be dropped because of fear of the stigma attached. Their children were already deaf, then to have the possibility that they were "turned gay' added. At that time, you almost might as well have the boy sent away while hoping that the whole thing never comes out.

 

As for the Holy Father, he has not done any thing wrong.

 

It has already been said once in this thread. The newspaper has an agenda. If you read carefully over the last few years you'll notice a pattern of Christian/Catholic bashing in the press.

[Cranberry]

 

We are now in 2010 and someone has brought this up as somehow being the Pope's fault? I am really not sure - the Office of the Congregation allowed the canon trial to move forward despite a technicality.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

Guess it was a slow news day, what with wars, famine, government take over of healthcare, earthquake victims and all that, there's nothing like a good anti-Catholic story just before Easter to get everyone riled up. :tongue_smilie: