Pope accused of ignoring pleas to stop priest who molested 200 deaf boys
 

A video and the original article can be found here.

Pope Benedict XVI was drawn deeper yesterday into the clerical sex abuse scandal that has begun to overwhelm the Roman Catholic Church, when he was accused of personally failing to take action against a serial paedophile.

The Pope was blamed directly for ignoring repeated pleas by senior American churchmen to take action against a priest who had molested up to 200 deaf boys.

Father Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at the St John’s School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin, from 1950 to 1974, starting as a teacher and rising to director, allegedly molested scores of pupils, preying on his victims in their dormitories and on class trips.

But instead of being defrocked and the police called in, it is alleged that Father Murphy avoided justice and remained a member of the Church after a key intervention by the Pope — then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Murphy was quietly moved to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974 and spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes and schools. He died in 1998 at the age of 72, still a priest.

In 1996 Monsignor Rembert Weakland, then the Archbishop of Milwaukee, twice wrote about Father Murphy to the current Pope — who was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at that time, a position he held between 1982 and 2005 — requesting that Father Murphy be defrocked after admitting to the abuse. Documents obtained by The New York Times show that Archbishop Weakland told Cardinal Ratzinger that he was referring the case to him as head of doctrine, not least because the priest was alleged to have used his role during confession to solicit victims.

Archbishop Weakland said his aim was to defuse anger among the abused and to restore their trust in the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger did not reply.

Nonetheless, eight months later Father Murphy was subject of a secret canonical trial — one using internal Church law — ordered by Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. Cardinal Bertone is now the Pope’s right-hand man as Secretary of State, or the Vatican prime minister.

The trial was halted after Father Murphy wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger protesting that he had already repented and was in poor health, adding that the case had run out of time under the Church’s own statute of limitations because it related to allegations made more than two decades previously. “I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood,” Father Murphy told Cardinal Ratzinger, adding: “I ask for your kind assistance in this matter.” Cardinal Bertone agreed, saying that the priest should instead repent, undertake a spiritual retreat and be restricted from celebrating Mass outside his diocese.

“This Dicastery [Vatican administrative department] has every hope that the priest in question will demonstrate a willingness to co-operate in the solution to this painful case which will favour the good of souls and avoid scandal,” wrote Monsignor Bertone.

The documents on the Murphy case were made public by lawyers representing five men who have brought lawsuits against the archdiocese of Milwaukee. They include letters between bishops and the Vatican, victims’ affidavits, handwritten notes by a sexual disorders expert who interviewed Father Murphy and minutes of a final meeting on the case at the Vatican.

A letter from Monsignor Bertone later in 1998, after Father Murphy had died, said: “This Dicastery commends Fr Murphy to the mercy of God and shares with you the hope that the Church will be spared any undue publicity from this matter.”

Victims of Father Murphy’s abuse said yesterday that the Pope should be held responsible. Arthur Budzinksi, 61, said: “The Pope knew about this. He should be held accountable. I believe somebody should be punished.”

Critics of the Pope are also focusing on a 1962 document entitled Crimen Sollicitationis, which he updated in 2001 as Vatican head of doctrine in De Delictis Gravioribus. Referring to cases in which priests were accused of sexual relations with minors, the 2001 instruction said: “Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret” — a phrase interpreted by many in the Church as an instruction not to alert the police to sex abuse claims.

The latest allegations undermine the Pope’s efforts to draw a line under a series of abuse cases that have emerged in the past few months. After official government reports revealed decades of abuse in Ireland last year, cases have begun to emerge more recently in the Pope’s native Germany, as well as Austria, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Brazil. Last week Benedict XVI issued an unprecedented letter to bishops in Ireland, saying that he was deeply disturbed and “truly sorry” over years of abuse by Catholic priests in the country, which the Church had covered up. He stressed that the Church must co-operate with civil authorities.

Victims’ groups said they were disappointed because he had made no reference to the Vatican’s — or his own — responsibility for cover-ups. The Vatican has insisted that no cover-up took place and has denounced what it calls a campaign “to smear the Pope”.

The growing scandal provoked a protest at the Vatican yesterday. Leaders of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (Snap) were detained by police after demonstrating on the edge of St Peter’s Square, holding up pictures of Father Murphy and some of his victims and signs reading “Stop the secrecy now” and “Expose the truth”.

“The goal of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, was to keep this secret,” said Peter Isely, the Milwaukee-based director of Snap. “This is the most incontrovertible case of paedophilia you could get,” he added, flanked by photos of other clerical abuse victims and a poster of the Pope.

“We need to know why he [the Pope] did not let us know about him [Murphy] and why he didn’t let the police know about him and why he did not condemn him and why he did not take his collar away from him.”

Barbara Blaine, president of Snap, said: “I would ask the Pope if he would please open up the files from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and turn over all the information to the police. I would also ask him to make a public order to all bishops across the globe that all predator priests must be removed from ministry immediately.”

Inside the Vatican there was little sign that that was going to happen. L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, said that there was a “clear and despicable intention” to strike at the pontiff “at any cost” over revelations of how the Vatican handled clerical abuse.

Father Federico Lombardi, the Pope’s spokesman, admitted Father Murphy had violated “particularly vulnerable” children in Milwaukee who “suffered terribly from what he did” in a “tragic case . . . By sexually abusing children who were hearing-impaired, Father Murphy violated the law and, more importantly, the sacred trust that his victims had placed in him.”

But he said that the Vatican had not learnt of the case until 1996, two decades after civil authorities had investigated and dropped it. The “decisive factor” in the decision not to punish or defrock Father Murphy had been his age, his “precarious state of health” and the lack of further accusations against him. Father Lombardi added that the Crimen Sollicitationis and its updated version had not “prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities”.

Cases that link the Pope to a policy of secrecy

The Vatican argued yesterday that there had been no systematic cover-up of clerical sex abuse and that the Pope was being criticised unfairly . However, three incidents seem to link the Pope with the Church’s apparent policy of secrecy:

1980 As Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Joseph Ratzinger presided at a meeting about Father Peter Hullermann, who had forced an 11-year-old to have oral sex and had assaulted three other children. Diocese authorities approved Hullermann’s transfer to southern Germany for therapy; police were not told. Hullermann returned to pastoral duties within two weeks but it is unclear whether Ratzinger knew this. Hullermann reoffended

1996 The Archbishop of Milwaukee wrote to Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to ask that the Rev Lawrence C. Murphy, a child abuser, be put through a church trial. Father Murphy had molested up to 200 youngsters. The Archbishop received no response but cardinals halted proceedings against Father Murphy after he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger begging for mercy

2001 Ratzinger ruled that child abuse claims must be handled in canonical trials behind closed doors. Critics say it has done little to stop paedophile priests from transferring to another parish or to encourage reporting of abuse

Heard about this story and posted it on a different forum.

Pretty fucked up.

That many deaf boys are all in one town? Holy crap!

That's awful, if it is true.

And they all go to the same church!??

getting excited?

Is this surprising? He's wanting to sweep it under the rug. There are countless examples of this in many different organizations. Saving face has come back to bite him in the ass. There's also the possibility that he has raped kiddos too.

Y'see, this is why nobody likes Catholics. It's easier to point the finger at their bad deeds, and ignore our own.

You mean kinda like how these same priests pointed fingers and called people sinners while diddling little boys?

That's exactly what I said, right? Priests/Pope = Catholic.
Other religions don't give a honkin' hoot what the Pope says.

Yeah, but there's like 1 billion Catholics in the world.

Yea. I'm sure them not believing in birth control isn't to perpetuate their influence and increase the number of births in ignorant populations that follow their rules to the T? :P

That sounds remarkably like the southern half of our country. Without the intelligent conspiracy behind it though.

it is illegal to sell sex toys in Mississippi.

Mississippi? That place is still around!?

This video details pretty well the corruption and deceit in the Catholic church over the past few decades. It's well worth the watch, and quite disturbing.

What makes me sad about this scenario, well with all corruption within the Church, is the fact I was raised a Catholic and up until only a few years ago, upon my own curiosity and research, found out the other side of the story. Good video K_A, i'll be watching it asap.

I recommend everyone watch it, especially if you don't know much about this stuff. It's pretty damning, and pretty fucked up. I'm really interested to see how this plays out. The only way the Catholic church can save face now is to make the Pope resign, and have complete transparency in regards to these internal cover-ups of sorts. The fact that the Vatican acts as a sovereign nation, and abuses things such as diplomatic immunity to protect and continue to allow pedophiles to molest and rape children, should be more than enough reason to take their power away. They obviously are not using it for "good" like they would have us all think.

This may be the first time in Zelaron history that everyone agrees on something.

Next up on our list - Scientology!

Stop spamming up my serious threads you fucktard. I'm serious. I've accepted that you're just going to deposit more shit on the forum with every post, but I had at least hoped you would keep it to the appropriate places.

Fair enough.
But really, if a Pope believed in God, or, any kind of just anything, he'd take care of all these problems they have. If I'd been Pope, this definately would've been taken care of. Then again, I think being Pope goes against the basic idea of catholic/christianity/abrahamic belief. I might be mistake, especially since I can't find it, but I once heard/read that more people would listen to the Pope before they'd listen to Jesus. Like, if Jesus came infront of everyone, walked on water, showed everyone the holes in his hands, and kick Satan in the dick, then told everyone to eat fish...
and then the Pope to eat waffles.
Like, 80% of them would eat waffles. Which, definately makes being the Pope... sorta like being Pharaoh, actually. Holy crap!

Pope = Pharaoh. I have no idea where I'm goin' with this, but, yeah. Tyrant alert!

I'm not really sure where you're going with that either but you're pretty much right. This is the problem. When you have leaders who are completely unaccountable for their actions because of their "infallability", they've got a blank check to do whatever the hell they want and get away with it. It's no different than the way a lot of people treat our law enforcement officers. In the eyes of a lot of people, law enforcement officers are in the same category as clergymen, to the point that people actually believe that you have to follow any and every order a law enforcement officer gives you. To the point where people give up their rights WILLINGLY because they trust that these people won't take advantage of them.

Like the patriot act. It's curious how this story shows up around Easter, good timing!

So why don't they do some kind of psychology test, to make sure officers aren't power hungry, or something? Can't they just let purely just people in? I mean, there has to be at least some people who actually do have a sense of justice...

You're assuming that there's some morally-right group that could make those decisions? That's the problem. Corruption starts from the top. Who is to say who is or isn't "purely just"? And even if someone claims to be able to determine as much, who is to say that they themselves are "purely just" and wont just let a bunch of corrupt people have the power?

Down the chain, someone has to be truly just for the rest of the powers beneath them to be just. Just as corruption starts from the top, the opposite is true. Except humans are inherently corrupt. A lot of people remedy this by claiming that at the top is God, who is obviously "purely just." Except if God doesn't exist, the opposite is true (that a human, susceptible to corruption and sin, is at the top and naturally the lower powers follow suit.) Which is exactly why religion is so dangerous. It gives this divine label to God, or Allah, or whoever else, but in reality they don't exist and some corrupt, or at the very least ignorant, human is calling the shots.*

*Edit: And while they're calling the shots, they're hiding behind a facade that they're actually doing the bidding of God, and anything they say is really the word of God. And thus, they are infallible.

Someone who watches too much Kamen Rider.
Get somebody who has a stupidly strong belief in humanity, love, and justice. Religion plays only 1/100th of a role in this.
I mean, to find someone purely just, all you have to do is get a bunch of people together and find the one good thing they all agree on, right? I mean, even though it's still controversial, right and wrong is sort of a natural thing, for most people.
Stealing from a poor person, who simply had bad luck/chance = wrong.
Steal from a rich person who hasn't done a thing in his life and has plenty of money to give around = Robin Hood.
In my opinion. But, like always, somebody's going to break in and kick my logic in the nuts any minute now. Either that, or get surprised by me being right about something once every 1000 posts.

But you're missing the point, you can't just "get somebody who has a stupidly strong belief in humanity, love, and justice." To find such a person, you would need to have such a person to even judge them as such. You're basing "right" and "wrong" far too much on your Self. In general, I don't think there really is such a thring as truly right or wrong, as far as morals go, because ultimately morals are defined by humans who are the ones who need the morals. And unfortunately, human nature seems to tend toward corruption, and in the most dangerous way where people tend to think that what they are doing is RIGHT (because, just like you, they're thinking of right and wrong in regards to their own opinions, or maybe even to the opinion of the majority, neither of which are a real gauge of morality (if there is even such a thing.)

It's like the chicken and the egg, almost. Which came first, the rules, or the rule-breakers who made the rules? Or something like that anyway. I'm kinda brain-dead at the moment.

I guess that makes sense... but, if a bunch of people got together and made rules, it would work, right? Multiple perspectives, all discussing what it was... at least, that way, there's a chance. Wait, I think that was the original constitution, huh? Mmm...
So, looks like we all dug ourselfs into a hole of fail, huh?

You do know that sex crimes in the Catholic Church goes waaaaay back. I read a pretty interesting article on Cracked about fucked up Popes. Read about something called The Feast of Chestnuts (I think that's right). It was rather insane, especially given how the Church condemned sex for anyone within the clergy.

And yesterday some priest actually tried to liken the whole sex scandal to anti-semitism. Anti-semitism of all fucking things! That's like trying to liken a parent spanking their child for misbehaving to a Southern white plantation owner whipping a slave for being sick. It doesn't work.

Indeed. Just because we don't hold their clergy to the same standards that they do, does not mean we are "anti-catholic". My stance on the issue is the same as any true Catholic person's should be, IMO. Get rid of the corruption behind the religion. If nothing else, the true Catholics should be screaming for these people to get out, because they're making the religion as a whole look bad.

Without a doubt. Infact, how come nobody has said what you just said, yet? Someone should be letting them know that...

Because you don't understand many hardcore Catholics. They will defend their religion til the very bitter end. My mom and most of my family defend their religion hard because they're afraid if they don't, then they'll be just as bad as the big ol' bad Muslims.

If they want to defend their religion, then maybe they should put up some nicer shields! Really. You shouldn't HAVE to defend it, if you set it up right! If someone speaks up, the church can see some nice changes, and probably have a few good years. But, I guess it's too important to make an ass out of every member, instead of just fixing the problem. That's like going and buying a new computer over one virus, instead of running a scan. Well... not exactly, but you get what I mean, right?

It's the nature of the beast. You can't admit that your church has openly allowed this sort of thing. You can't admit that your church's ultimate leader, the Pope almighty himself, allowed that stuff to happen. They are perfect in every way possible. Anything else is blasphemy.

Build him a pyramid while you're at it. :weird:

The problem is that Catholocism claims that the Pope is human and fallible, but when he speaks from the Chair of Saint Peter, anything he says or does is infallible. It's crazy.

I've never understood that either, even from a younger age.

I did. I was a Catholic apologist. It all made sense some how.

I just couldn't imagine you defending catholicism. It's amazing how brainwashed they must have made you growing up. They suppressed your homosexuality etc. for a while it seems.

Kagom was a straight Catholic boy when he joined these forums.