QuoteVictims react to pontiff's letter
Groups representing victims of clerical abuse have given a mixed reaction to the Pope's letter to Irish Catholics about the issue.
Maeve Lewis of One in Four said that despite some positives she was largely "despondent" about the letter.
She said it had not sufficiently addressed the "cover-up" of paedophile priests by the church's hierarchy.
However, Patrick Walsh of Irish Survivors of Abuse said the letter was "unprecedented" and "encouraging".
Pope Benedict XVI's letter accused Irish bishops of having made "serious mistakes".
Prayer
However, One in Four has said that the Irish primate, Cardinal Sean Brady, should resign following his alleged role in the cover-up of an abuse case.
He was present at two meetings in 1975 when alleged victims of serial paedophile Fr Brendan Smyth were sworn to secrecy about what had happened.
Ms Lewis said that she welcomed the Pope's call for the church to co-operate with the secular authorities.
"But we are very despondent that the Pope does not address the key issue, which is the church policy, right to the very top of the Vatican, to cover up sex abuse scandals to protect paedophile priests at the expense of vulnerable children."
She said the group was "astounded" at the Pope's comments about how clerical sexual abuse could be seen in the context of the secularisation of Irish society.
"This shows a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of sexual violence, and creates little hope that the Church will ever respond effectively to the problem."
However, Mr Walsh said that while there would be "mixed feelings" about the
he felt it was "encouraging".
He said: "There is an awful lot of call to prayer as you would expect of course from a man whose stock in trade is prayer.
" The context is of course inappropriate as a pastoral letter is addressed only to practising Catholics "
Andrew Madden, abuse survivor
"But I cut through all that stuff and what I see here is a very important historical document, unprecedented in the history of the Holy See, absolutely unprecedented."
He added that he believed the Pope's comments meant that those guilty of abuse should face criminal prosecution.
"Clearly it is a demand by the Pope that those who are guilty of crimes against the young submit themselves to the demands of justice. I take that to mean secular justice."
Clerical abuse survivor, Andrew Madden said the letter "failed to address this issue at all seriously".
In a statement, he said: "The context is of course inappropriate, as by its very definition a pastoral letter is addressed only to practising Catholics and so ignores many other people who may in some way have been affected by this issue."
Failure
He added that a pastoral letter was not the way to respond to reports carried out by the Irish state which detailed "the rape, abuse and sexual abuse of children by priests and religious in this country and its cover up by Church authorities".
He added: "As I had anticipated the letter also fails to address any of the issues raised by myself and others in our open letter to the Pope last month, in advance of the Irish Bishops' trip to Rome."
Cardinal Brady has said he hopes the Pope's letter will be a chance for "rebirth" in the church.
Speaking at mass in Armagh on Saturday morning, he urged people to read it with "an open heart and in a spirit of faith".
He added: "No one imagines that the present painful situation will be resolved quickly.
"Yet with perseverance, prayer and working together in unity, the Holy Father says we can be confident that the Church in Ireland will experience a season of rebirth and spiritual renewal."
The Archbishop of Dublin said the letter was a "further step" in the healing process.
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin added: "I welcome the Pope's expression of apology and his recognition of the suffering and betrayal experienced by survivors.
"The Pope recognises the failures of Church authorities in how they dealt with sinful and criminal acts."
I love that he has a nerve to blame the secular society for this. Also pointedly missing is any indication of change of the church's policy when it comes to the cooperation with secular authorities - unlike public (and I suspect, most private schools), there is still no obligation of the church-run institutions for children to report cases of child abuse to the authorities.
QuotePope's sex abuse letter breaks Vatican taboo
By David Willey
BBC News, Rome
In an unusual Vatican document, Pope Benedict has issued a heartfelt personal apology to the people of Ireland and to thousands of victims of sexual abuse in past decades by Roman Catholic priests there.
He has also rebuked Irish bishops for "grave errors of judgement" in dealing with the problem.
"I can only share in the dismay and sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts," the Pope wrote.
About 15,000 Irish people who attended church-run schools and institutions when they were children and claim to have been abused by priests and teachers have received so far over one billion euros in compensation from a state redress board.
The final number of victims and of the sums of money paid out by the Church and the Irish government could be much higher.
"You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry," Pope Benedict wrote.
Having already met victims of predator Catholic priests during visits to America and Australia, the Pope provided a rare personal insight into the ordeals suffered by children who were sexually abused.
"I know some of you even find it difficult to enter the doors of a church after all that has occurred," he wrote.
The pope's unprecedented eight-page pastoral letter devoted exclusively to the scandal and crisis in the Irish Church has broken a Vatican taboo.
" I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel "
Pope Benedict
Most Vatican documents relating to the scandal have hitherto been classified as confidential and have been marked only for the eyes of bishops.
The Pope announced that he is sending teams of inspectors to some Irish dioceses, to seminaries and to Irish religious orders to investigate how far they have strayed from the new rules laid down by Rome to try to curb the flood of cases of alleged priest paedophilia reaching the desks of Vatican officials during the past decade.
But the Pope admits that no-one imagines that what he calls "this painful situation" will be swiftly resolved.
The letter has not been welcomed by Ireland's main group of clerical abuse victims, One in Four.
They expressed deep disappointment that the Pope accepted no blame for what they call "a deliberate policy of the Catholic Church to protect sex offenders, thereby endangering children".
In Germany - where more than 250 cases of sexual abuse by priests have been reported to the Vatican - Archbishop Robert Zollitsch, who briefed the Pope recently on the situation in his homeland, commented that the scandal was not just an Irish problem.
The Pope's criticism of the sluggish reaction of the Irish hierarchy to the scandal was applicable in Germany also.
Celibacy question
What the Pope's letter does not mention is also worth pointing out.
There is no indication of any sanctions being adopted against Ireland's 28 bishops for their "grave errors of judgement".
There is no mention either of the word "celibacy".
The rule - which forbids Catholic priests from marrying, and which dates not from early Christian times, but which became mandatory only during the Middle Ages - is being publicly questioned for the first time by some church heavyweights, such as the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schoenborn.
The taboo on any discussion at official level of the celibacy rule imposed by the late Pope John Paul II has been maintained by his successor, but increasingly a connection is being seen in some church quarters between celibacy and the psychological problems suffered by many priest paedophiles.
The Vatican has moved into full damage control mode, making wide use of new media outlets to put over its point of view during the latest revelations concerning sexual abuse scandals in the Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Italy and the world's most populous Catholic country, Brazil.
The Pope's pastoral letter, together with background information about the Catholic Church's plans to try to counter the blows inflicted by the scandals on its reputation as guardian of morals, has been posted on Twitter and also video-sharing site YouTube.
Throw a bit of papal money thei...err....our :shifty:....way and its fine
Quote from: Tyr on March 22, 2010, 05:27:57 AM
Throw a bit of papal money thei...err....our :shifty:....way and its fine
Was Tyr abused by a Catholic priest as a kid? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 22, 2010, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 22, 2010, 05:27:57 AM
Throw a bit of papal money thei...err....our :shifty:....way and its fine
Was Tyr abused by a Catholic priest as a kid? :hmm:
If there's money in it I was.
I guess this is a big story in Poland.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2010, 06:03:16 AM
I guess this is a big story in Poland.
This is one of the top two international stories on BBC (along with the US Health Care bill).
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2010, 05:19:50 AMI love that he has a nerve to blame the secular society for this.
They do the same over here. The speaker of the Spanish Bishops Conference, when asked about the issue last week, started drifting and talked about Jesus' suffering on the cross, original sin, and how a secularized society has no morals and no guidance against evil and so on and so forth.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2010, 06:15:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2010, 06:03:16 AM
I guess this is a big story in Poland.
This is one of the top two international stories on BBC (along with the US Health Care bill).
So it's big in Europe.
You can't expect americans to care much about what the Catholic church does.
Quote from: Tyr on March 22, 2010, 05:46:54 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 22, 2010, 05:33:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on March 22, 2010, 05:27:57 AM
Throw a bit of papal money thei...err....our :shifty:....way and its fine
Was Tyr abused by a Catholic priest as a kid? :hmm:
If there's money in it I was.
Few would admit to a hankering for the life of a child prostitute. ;)
Atomic fire is the best way to rid the world of popery.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2010, 06:03:16 AM
I guess this is a big story in Poland.
It is in Germany (as concerned "market"). In Austria, too, esp. since there was a scandal a few years back regarding sexual abuse at a priest's college.
We need a gay sub-forum.
I had thought that this scandal was old news and had lost the power to shock but the revelation that Brady:
(a) was involved in pressuring two teen victims of abuse to sign confidentiality agreements protecting the Church and the offender, and
(b) apparently sees no real problem in this even today,
was IMO pretty damn disturbing, especially coming from such a senior official.
Quote from: DGuller on March 22, 2010, 01:04:05 PM
We need a gay sub-forum.
We need a Marti sub-forum. With very limited access.
sandbox :wub:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2010, 01:10:45 PM
I had thought that this scandal was old news and had lost the power to shock but the revelation that Brady:
(a) was involved in pressuring two teen victims of abuse to sign confidentiality agreements protecting the Church and the offender, and
(b) apparently sees no real problem in this even today,
was IMO pretty damn disturbing, especially coming from such a senior official.
It also was reinvigorated by the recent scandals that erupted in Austria, Germany (including under the supervision of the Pope's brother, and also with some "mistakes" linked to the Pope himself although he denies knowledge), the Netherlands, Denmark and Brazil.
At risk of the doing the dreaded cross-thread reference, doesn't this sort of demostrate the danger of large collective institutions with strong moral missions? A big part of the problem here seems to me that the Church thinks that because it is on a Belushi-like "mission from God," it thinks that problems like rampant sexual abuse of children are just annoyances that get in the way of the more important work that they need to be doing. Whereas some amoral corporation just out to make a buck would clean house and can everyone in sight, from the CEO on down, if that was needed to fix the PR mess.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2010, 04:52:48 PM
At risk of the doing the dreaded cross-thread reference, doesn't this sort of demostrate the danger of large collective institutions with strong moral missions? A big part of the problem here seems to me that the Church thinks that because it is on a Belushi-like "mission from God," it thinks that problems like rampant sexual abuse of children are just annoyances that get in the way of the more important work that they need to be doing. Whereas some amoral corporation just out to make a buck would clean house and can everyone in sight, from the CEO on down, if that was needed to fix the PR mess.
I agree that it is an organizational problem - it's a problem that goes with having a "top down" religious organization.
The Jewish model, which in essence appears to treat religious professionals much like any other sort of professional (in that each congregation hires their own) appears to have relatively less of an issue with this: there are certainly still sex scandals, but the perps are seemingly less likely to be viewed as a problem for the religion as a whole and there is less incentive to cover up for them.
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2010, 05:18:54 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 22, 2010, 04:52:48 PM
At risk of the doing the dreaded cross-thread reference, doesn't this sort of demostrate the danger of large collective institutions with strong moral missions? A big part of the problem here seems to me that the Church thinks that because it is on a Belushi-like "mission from God," it thinks that problems like rampant sexual abuse of children are just annoyances that get in the way of the more important work that they need to be doing. Whereas some amoral corporation just out to make a buck would clean house and can everyone in sight, from the CEO on down, if that was needed to fix the PR mess.
I agree that it is an organizational problem - it's a problem that goes with having a "top down" religious organization.
The Jewish model, which in essence appears to treat religious professionals much like any other sort of professional (in that each congregation hires their own) appears to have relatively less of an issue with this: there are certainly still sex scandals, but the perps are seemingly less likely to be viewed as a problem for the religion as a whole and there is less incentive to cover up for them.
Well, you guys don't have monasteries or celibacy in the first place.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2010, 05:21:55 PM
Well, you guys don't have monasteries or celibacy in the first place.
But we have Jewish wives.
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2010, 05:21:55 PM
Well, you guys don't have monasteries or celibacy in the first place.
Or altar boys.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 22, 2010, 06:21:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2010, 05:21:55 PM
Well, you guys don't have monasteries or celibacy in the first place.
Or altar boys.
True. Plus Jewish kids are fat. So they don't get molested. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 22, 2010, 05:21:55 PM
Well, you guys don't have monasteries or celibacy in the first place.
I think celebacy is a problem, but only in a roundabout way: being celebate certainly isn't going to *make* folks molest children if they otherwise would not, but it may in effect provide good cover for a person uninterested in ordinary sexual relations with adults (or adult women specifically in more traditional societies where homosexuality is considered shameful or criminal -- it acts as a refuge for both pedophiles *and* homosexuals).
Plenty of pedophiles seem to have no problem being married, though. Such types could easily be Rabbis. The difference is that Jewish congregations are notoriously assertive, and do not necessarily defer to the Rabbi they are employing; if they discover that their Rabbi is buggering little Moshe, he's out on his ear and in a jail cell right quick - there is none of this going to a helpful bishop to prevent scandal to the church. The congregation's board of directors consider *themselves*, not the Rabbi, to be the "community leaders". The Rabbi's an employee - an honoured one to be sure, like a lawyer or doctor, but not above suspicion and they can (and are) fired and ratted out to the cops if they are abusive.
In contrast, the "lay community" has a lot less pull in Catholicism, with its bishops, cardinals and Pope at the top. In Judaism, the "top" is the board of directors of an individual synagogue - there exist larger organizations, but they are not controlling. This creates whole sets of different problems, as the types who make up the avearge board can often be incredibly petty minded and full of the usual bullshit and politicing. What happens if you don't like it is that you go to a different synagogue (or start your own).
Actually I talked about this with an Israeli guy yesterday and he told me at least in Israel there is likely to be a similar level of cover-up (though more "grassroots" than structural) if a rabbi was found to molest children. He told me such cases are very unlikely to be reported to secular authorities, especially among the orthodox Jews.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2010, 09:55:31 AM
Actually I talked about this with an Israeli guy yesterday and he told me at least in Israel there is likely to be a similar level of cover-up (though more "grassroots" than structural) if a rabbi was found to molest children. He told me such cases are very unlikely to be reported to secular authorities, especially among the orthodox Jews.
:rolleyes: no matter what the catholic in you surfaces.
this you will find in every religion of course.
point is, with catholics it is nearing industrial levels because due to their (low) prestige in european society and celibacy, only perverted assholes will become priests.
How is the catholic in me surfacing? I'm just saying that not every account from Jewish/Israeli people seems to confirm Malthus' view.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2010, 09:55:31 AM
Actually I talked about this with an Israeli guy yesterday and he told me at least in Israel there is likely to be a similar level of cover-up (though more "grassroots" than structural) if a rabbi was found to molest children. He told me such cases are very unlikely to be reported to secular authorities, especially among the orthodox Jews.
Israeli society may be different than North America, I dunno.
Here, the "Orthodox" include guys like the Riechmanns, of "Canary Warf" fame (or infamy ;)). They attended a shul not two blocks from my parent's house - I doubt that they would tolerate a rabbi in their employ molesting their kids (though admittedly it may not be reported to the cops ... :ph34r: )
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2010, 10:19:53 AM
Here, the "Orthodox" include guys like the Riechmanns, of "Canary Warf" fame (or infamy ;)). They attended a shul not two blocks from my parent's house - I doubt that they would tolerate a rabbi in their employ molesting their kids (though admittedly it may not be reported to the cops ... :ph34r: )
I think that kind of dynamic exists in most religions though. It's inherent in sexual abuse - the abuser is powerful and respected, the victim is a child and has little power. All kinds of excuses can be dreamed up to minimize the behaviour.
I once represented a mom in a child welfare application. She and her husband were very conservative mennonites, living in a very conservative mennonite town. Anyways dad diddled a couple of his daughters. When it came out he had to 'confess' to the congregation, they did something or other, then they considered the matter closed and were shocked when the CFS worker thought otherwise...
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2010, 09:55:31 AM
Actually I talked about this with an Israeli guy yesterday and he told me at least in Israel there is likely to be a similar level of cover-up (though more "grassroots" than structural) if a rabbi was found to molest children. He told me such cases are very unlikely to be reported to secular authorities, especially among the orthodox Jews.
And now we know why Siegebreaker went to America.
Quote from: Malthus on March 22, 2010, 05:18:54 PM
The Jewish model, which in essence appears to treat religious professionals much like any other sort of professional (in that each congregation hires their own) appears to have relatively less of an issue with this: there are certainly still sex scandals, but the perps are seemingly less likely to be viewed as a problem for the religion as a whole and there is less incentive to cover up for them.
They even make musicals about them - Kiddie Fiddler on the Roof for example.
Quote from: Barrister on March 23, 2010, 11:09:47 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2010, 10:19:53 AM
Here, the "Orthodox" include guys like the Riechmanns, of "Canary Warf" fame (or infamy ;)). They attended a shul not two blocks from my parent's house - I doubt that they would tolerate a rabbi in their employ molesting their kids (though admittedly it may not be reported to the cops ... :ph34r: )
I think that kind of dynamic exists in most religions though. It's inherent in sexual abuse - the abuser is powerful and respected, the victim is a child and has little power. All kinds of excuses can be dreamed up to minimize the behaviour.
I once represented a mom in a child welfare application. She and her husband were very conservative mennonites, living in a very conservative mennonite town. Anyways dad diddled a couple of his daughters. When it came out he had to 'confess' to the congregation, they did something or other, then they considered the matter closed and were shocked when the CFS worker thought otherwise...
Yeah, my point being that the power dynamic between rabbi and congregation is typically different than that between Catholic priest and congregation. Obviously relative seperation of the congregation from the society at large will also play a role - those denominations that are more isolated will be more likely not to want to invole the authorities.
Most NA Jews are not particularly isolated from society as a whole - that is more the realm of such sects as the Hassids. Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist - they don't typically view the authorities as "outsiders". Particularly the Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative - guys in these sects who are also on the Board of Directors of synagogues tend to be upper-class to upper-middle class types, VPs of major corporations and the like. They are *not* intimidated by the rabbis they have hired, in the same way that a Catholic layman is likely to be by an Archbishop.
The point I was making was that the power dynamic involved in the organization of the religion was probably a more important factor in why the Catholic Church is having such problems with this issue, as opposed to such stuff as celebacy (though that doesn't help).
Quote from: Gups on March 23, 2010, 11:29:58 AM
They even make musicals about them - Kiddie Fiddler on the Roof for example.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2010, 09:55:31 AM
Actually I talked about this with an Israeli guy yesterday and he told me at least in Israel there is likely to be a similar level of cover-up (though more "grassroots" than structural) if a rabbi was found to molest children. He told me such cases are very unlikely to be reported to secular authorities, especially among the orthodox Jews.
It is a problem, and one increasingly recognized even in the Hasid community where there is a tendency to try to police one's own. But not at the level of the organized mass cover-up and suppression campaign the Church has appeared to have operated.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2010, 02:44:44 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2010, 09:55:31 AM
Actually I talked about this with an Israeli guy yesterday and he told me at least in Israel there is likely to be a similar level of cover-up (though more "grassroots" than structural) if a rabbi was found to molest children. He told me such cases are very unlikely to be reported to secular authorities, especially among the orthodox Jews.
It is a problem, and one increasingly recognized even in the Hasid community where there is a tendency to try to police one's own. But not at the level of the organized mass cover-up and suppression campaign the Church has appeared to have operated.
You seem to know a lot about the cover-up. :hmm:
More fun stuff emerge about B16:
QuoteVatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.
The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.
The documents emerge as Pope Benedict is facing other accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican's chief doctrinal enforcer.
The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.
In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee's archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican's secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy's dismissal.
But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church's own statute of limitations.
"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 New York Times obtained the documents, which the church fought to keep secret, from Jeff Anderson and Mike Finnegan, the lawyers for five men who have brought four lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. The documents include letters between bishops and the Vatican, victims' affidavits, the handwritten notes of an expert on sexual disorders who interviewed Father Murphy and minutes of a final meeting on the case at the Vatican.
Father Murphy not only was never tried or disciplined by the church's own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims. Three successive archbishops in Wisconsin were told that Father Murphy was sexually abusing children, the documents show, but never reported it to criminal or civil authorities.
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. He died in 1998, still a priest.
Even as the pope himself in a recent letter to Irish Catholics has emphasized the need to cooperate with civil justice in abuse cases, the correspondence seems to indicate that the Vatican's insistence on secrecy has often impeded such cooperation. At the same time, the officials' reluctance to defrock a sex abuser shows that on a doctrinal level, the Vatican has tended to view the matter in terms of sin and repentance more than crime and punishment.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, was shown the documents and was asked to respond to questions about the case. He provided a statement saying that Father Murphy had certainly violated "particularly vulnerable" children and the law, and that it was a "tragic case." But he pointed out that the Vatican was not forwarded the case until 1996, years after civil authorities had investigated the case and dropped it.
Father Lombardi emphasized that neither the Code of Canon Law nor the Vatican norms issued in 1962, which instruct bishops to conduct canonical investigations and trials in secret, prohibited church officials from reporting child abuse to civil authorities. He did not address why that had never happened in this case.
As to why Father Murphy was never defrocked, he said that "the Code of Canon Law does not envision automatic penalties." He said that Father Murphy's poor health and the lack of more recent accusations against him were factors in the decision.
The Vatican's inaction is not unusual. Only 20 percent of the 3,000 accused priests whose cases went to the church's doctrinal office between 2001 and 2010 were given full church trials, and only some of those were defrocked, according to a recent interview in an Italian newspaper with Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna, the chief internal prosecutor at that office. An additional 10 percent were defrocked immediately. Ten percent left voluntarily. But a majority — 60 percent — faced other "administrative and disciplinary provisions," Monsignor Scicluna said, like being prohibited from celebrating Mass.
To many, Father Murphy appeared to be a saint: a hearing man gifted at communicating in American Sign Language and an effective fund-raiser for deaf causes. A priest of the Milwaukee Archdiocese, he started as a teacher at St. John's School for the Deaf, in St. Francis, in 1950. He was promoted to run the school in 1963 even though students had disclosed to church officials in the 1950s that he was a predator.
Victims give similar accounts of Father Murphy's pulling down their pants and touching them in his office, his car, his mother's country house, on class excursions and fund-raising trips and in their dormitory beds at night. Arthur Budzinski said he was first molested when he went to Father Murphy for confession when he was about 12, in 1960.
"If he was a real mean guy, I would have stayed away," said Mr. Budzinski, now 61, who worked for years as a journeyman printer. "But he was so friendly, and so nice and understanding. I knew he was wrong, but I couldn't really believe it."
Mr. Budzinski and a group of other deaf former students spent more than 30 years trying to raise the alarm, including passing out leaflets outside the Milwaukee cathedral. Mr. Budzinski's friend Gary Smith said in an interview that Father Murphy molested him 50 or 60 times, starting at age 12. By the time he graduated from high school at St. John's, Mr. Smith said, "I was a very, very angry man."
In 1993, with complaints about Father Murphy landing on his desk, Archbishop Weakland hired a social worker specializing in treating sexual offenders to evaluate him. After four days of interviews, the social worker said that Father Murphy had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse.
However, it was not until 1996 that Archbishop Weakland tried to have Father Murphy defrocked. The reason, he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger, was to defuse the anger among the deaf and restore their trust in the church. He wrote that since he had become aware that "solicitation in the confessional might be part of the situation," the case belonged at the doctrinal office.
With no response from Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Weakland wrote a different Vatican office in March 1997 saying the matter was urgent because a lawyer was preparing to sue, the case could become public and "true scandal in the future seems very possible."
Recently some bishops have argued that the 1962 norms dictating secret disciplinary procedures have long fallen out of use. But it is clear from these documents that in 1997, they were still in force.
But the effort to dismiss Father Murphy came to a sudden halt after the priest appealed to Cardinal Ratzinger for leniency.
In an interview, Archbishop Weakland said that he recalled a final meeting at the Vatican in May 1998 in which he failed to persuade Cardinal Bertone and other doctrinal officials to grant a canonical trial to defrock Father Murphy. (In 2002, Archbishop Weakland resigned after it became public that he had an affair with a man and used church money to pay him a settlement.)
Archbishop Weakland said this week in an interview, "The evidence was so complete, and so extensive that I thought he should be reduced to the lay state, and also that that would bring a certain amount of peace in the deaf community."
Father Murphy died four months later at age 72 and was buried in his priestly vestments. Archbishop Weakland wrote a last letter to Cardinal Bertone explaining his regret that Father Murphy's family had disobeyed the archbishop's instructions that the funeral be small and private, and the coffin kept closed.
"In spite of these difficulties," Archbishop Weakland wrote, "we are still hoping we can avoid undue publicity that would be negative toward the church."
Rachel Donadio contributed reporting from Rome.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
Well, he said he was sorry. :hmm:
QuoteTop Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.
What is more ridiculous? The American bishops making the argument to act on a rampant molester because it could be embarrassing, or the vatican ignoring the problem?
This could be the blow that really guts catholicism. An outbreak of axe wielding murderer priests is probably still less offputting than rampant child molesting. And when the pope is involved in the story, it can't be brushed off as a few bad eggs.
There was an amusing editorial in the NY Times about this the other day, in which the author argued that the Catholic Church should start electing female popes and that would somehow fix these sorts of problems.
What was more amusing to me, however, was that like 2/3 of the user comments (and there were many hundreds of them) said stuff like "OMG the Pope needs to go to jail for this", or "LOL put him on trial!!!!" :lol:
The dude is for all intents and purposes the absolute monarch of his own country. Who exactly is going to put him on trial? Good luck trying to extradite the Pope to somewhere else to stand trial. :contract:
No matter how mad laypeople get, the Pope isn't going to resign and he'll never be successfully prosecuted for anything.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2010, 01:58:12 PM
There was an amusing editorial in the NY Times about this the other day, in which the author argued that the Catholic Church should start electing female popes and that would somehow fix these sorts of problems.
What was more amusing to me, however, was that like 2/3 of the user comments (and there were many hundreds of them) said stuff like "OMG the Pope needs to go to jail for this", or "LOL put him on trial!!!!" :lol:
The dude is for all intents and purposes the absolute monarch of his own country. Who exactly is going to put him on trial? Good luck trying to extradite the Pope to somewhere else to stand trial. :contract:
No matter how mad laypeople get, the Pope isn't going to resign and he'll never be successfully prosecuted for anything.
All true but the Catholic Church may be shamed enough into not continuing to protect molestors by moving them to other jurisdictions rather then allowing them to stand trial for their crimes.
I suppose that's possible, but I believe the Church always wants to take care of these matters "internally" rather than cooperate with law enforcement when a priest is investigated.
I think this is a case where truly the best way to spur the Church to action would be for people to close their wallets until meaningful action was taken. I think eventually something like this will occur on a large enough scale to force change. Maybe that's what you meant though.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2010, 01:58:12 PM
There was an amusing editorial in the NY Times about this the other day, in which the author argued that the Catholic Church should start electing female popes and that would somehow fix these sorts of problems.
What was more amusing to me, however, was that like 2/3 of the user comments (and there were many hundreds of them) said stuff like "OMG the Pope needs to go to jail for this", or "LOL put him on trial!!!!" :lol:
The dude is for all intents and purposes the absolute monarch of his own country. Who exactly is going to put him on trial? Good luck trying to extradite the Pope to somewhere else to stand trial. :contract:
No matter how mad laypeople get, the Pope isn't going to resign and he'll never be successfully prosecuted for anything.
I find it amusing that people view with contempt good ideas that cannot be implemented, rather than viewing with contempt the reasons
why good ideas cannot be implemented.
The myth of the Pope as a sovereign could be ended in five minutes. Then he could go live with the Dalai Lama and they could commiserate on the end of medievalism.
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2010, 02:34:22 PM
I suppose that's possible, but I believe the Church always wants to take care of these matters "internally" rather than cooperate with law enforcement when a priest is investigated.
I believe that lately the Church has shown much more willingness to work with 'the authorities' in prosecutions. I don't think it's fair to say that now, in 2010, they always want to deal with these matters internally.
I knew grumbler would show up to destroy my post. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2010, 02:34:22 PM
I suppose that's possible, but I believe the Church always wants to take care of these matters "internally" rather than cooperate with law enforcement when a priest is investigated.
I think this is a case where truly the best way to spur the Church to action would be for people to close their wallets until meaningful action was taken. I think eventually something like this will occur on a large enough scale to force change. Maybe that's what you meant though.
At a certain age, people need to choose to be members of a religion, and then to remain a member. Who wants to chose a religion where the "infallible" leader protects child molestors? It isn't just a financial matter--a significant decline in influence of the Catholic Church is a big deal.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 29, 2010, 03:02:37 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2010, 02:34:22 PM
I suppose that's possible, but I believe the Church always wants to take care of these matters "internally" rather than cooperate with law enforcement when a priest is investigated.
I think this is a case where truly the best way to spur the Church to action would be for people to close their wallets until meaningful action was taken. I think eventually something like this will occur on a large enough scale to force change. Maybe that's what you meant though.
At a certain age, people need to choose to be members of a religion, and then to remain a member. Who wants to chose a religion where the "infallible" leader protects child molestors? It isn't just a financial matter--a significant decline in influence of the Catholic Church is a big deal.
That's a very American approach. Most Catholics in Catholic countries do not think in these categories.
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2010, 03:32:44 PM
That's a very American approach. Most Catholics in Catholic countries do not think in these categories.
Perhaps they should.
Quote from: Barrister on March 29, 2010, 03:36:00 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2010, 03:32:44 PM
That's a very American approach. Most Catholics in Catholic countries do not think in these categories.
Perhaps they should.
You can't think when you're in the arms of nuclear fire.
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2010, 03:32:44 PM
That's a very American approach. Most Catholics in Catholic countries do not think in these categories.
Sure they do. Maybe not in terms of being a Catholic converting to being a Lutheran, but at least in Europe it is a minority that remain practicing Catholics. People have made a choice to be secular and humanist in their views of the world.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 29, 2010, 03:48:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2010, 03:32:44 PM
That's a very American approach. Most Catholics in Catholic countries do not think in these categories.
Sure they do. Maybe not in terms of being a Catholic converting to being a Lutheran, but at least in Europe it is a minority that remain practicing Catholics. People have made a choice to be secular and humanist in their views of the world.
Yes, but they are still catholic. They still baptize their children, get married, bury their dead etc. That's the main source of bling for the church, not the platter collection.
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2010, 04:00:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 29, 2010, 03:48:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2010, 03:32:44 PM
That's a very American approach. Most Catholics in Catholic countries do not think in these categories.
Sure they do. Maybe not in terms of being a Catholic converting to being a Lutheran, but at least in Europe it is a minority that remain practicing Catholics. People have made a choice to be secular and humanist in their views of the world.
Yes, but they are still catholic. They still baptize their children, get married, bury their dead etc. That's the main source of bling for the church, not the platter collection.
If that is what Catholicism is reduced to, then who cares? The Church would be irrelevant as a political force.
Quote from: Martinus on March 29, 2010, 03:32:44 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 29, 2010, 03:02:37 PM
Quote from: Caliga on March 29, 2010, 02:34:22 PM
I suppose that's possible, but I believe the Church always wants to take care of these matters "internally" rather than cooperate with law enforcement when a priest is investigated.
I think this is a case where truly the best way to spur the Church to action would be for people to close their wallets until meaningful action was taken. I think eventually something like this will occur on a large enough scale to force change. Maybe that's what you meant though.
At a certain age, people need to choose to be members of a religion, and then to remain a member. Who wants to chose a religion where the "infallible" leader protects child molestors? It isn't just a financial matter--a significant decline in influence of the Catholic Church is a big deal.
That's a very American approach. Most Catholics in Catholic countries do not think in these categories.
More than half of Guatemala has converted to Evangelical Christianity. I think Evangelicals top 10% in every Latin American country now, these kinds of scandals will just accelerate this.