Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest [Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy] 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.Click here to read the rest of the article.
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.
HT: John Bugay.
I don't defend the Catholic Church on this and other matters, but I'm somewhat underwhelmed by this article if the claim is that Ratzinger or the Vatican had any knowledge of what this guy was doing at the time, which is what the headline implies. Nor is it clear to me that Ratzinger had any role in the decision not to defrock the guy.
ReplyDelete-Steve Jackson
Apparently the Vatican was moving toward taking action against him, in response to pressure from his Archdiocese, until the priest in question wrote to Ratzinger, at which time the Vatican decided to let it slide.
ReplyDeleteThe issue in this case is not so much the Vatican letting the abuse continue (that may or may not have been done at the local level years before), but the Vatican letting him go unpunished.
As far as Ratzinger's personal involvement, the priest wrote to Ratzinger personally, and Ratzinger's secretary then issued the order to let it go.
"Underwhelmed" at the sexual abuse of 200 deaf boys? That is a sad commentary on what the horrors of what sin does in our desperate world. It is also a sad commentary on the RCC which has no resources to deal with THE problem of humanity which is found in Christ. Unfortunately, the RCC has a Christ who is powerless to redeem us from our sin.
ReplyDeleteMillstones.
ReplyDeleteI've heard the following argument many times before. Folks are angry at the authorities who release criminals such as murderers, rapists, and child molesters out into the general public even though some folks testify that the criminal is still very dangerous.
And then some of these criminals murder, rape, or molest someone after they've been released.
And then the victims, the victims' families, and many others say that moral culpability and blame lies upon the authorities (usually bleeding heart liberals) because they are the ones who released the criminal back into society. The judicial institution and/or the judicial system is held to be morally culpable and morally responsible for the crimes that these criminals committed.
Does this apply here as well?
I see it more as an issue of the values and priorities of the Roman church. And I don't think the argument that "the church teaches against this sort of thing" is valid. We all know it's easy to hold things in theory, but how one actually behaves says a lot more.
ReplyDeleteMSC,
ReplyDeleteIs that honestly what you think I meant?
-Steve Jackson
It is obvious that Cardinal Ratzinger had no authority to defrock anyone, nor was that his area of authority. He was the head of the CDF, which deals with doctrine, not canon Law or the canonical defrocking of priests. The Apostolica Signitura is usually responsible for those issues.
ReplyDeleteYeah, so you need to let Ratzinger off the hizzook!
ReplyDeleteIf was never on the hook, how could he be let off of it?
ReplyDeleteRight, that's what I mean! He has zero complicity, zero responsibility. Leave Benny 16 aloooooooone!
ReplyDeleteWhen you want to rationally discuss something, let me know. I expected nothing less than this type of response.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you could start off the proceedings by actually admitting the obvious and odious - the RCC is infected with this thru and thru. *I* don't have a problem admitting there are problems with *my* church. We excomm'd a *deacon* recently for pædophilia. Why won't you?
ReplyDeleteIf you could find a statement by me where I have said that there is not a problem with this in the Catholic Church, then you may have an argument. The fact is you are making up words and putting them in my mouth. Shame on you.
ReplyDeleteSo make up your own words, and state them out of your own mouth. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step...
ReplyDeleteDidn't Ratzinger as head of CDF have some responsibility for these sexual abuse crimes?
ReplyDeleteIf Ratzinger had no authority over the issue, then why did the priest in question address his letter to him? And how is it that word then came down from that very office to let the priest go?
ReplyDeleteMATTHEW BELLISARIO SAID:
ReplyDelete"It is obvious that Cardinal Ratzinger had no authority to defrock anyone, nor was that his area of authority."
Well, Matthew, if you'd rather pin the blame on his predecessor, John-Paul II, I'm happy to accept that exchange.
However, Ratzinger has been pope for 5 years now. So how many abusive priests and complicit bishops has he defrocked as well as remanded to the authorities during his pontificate?
After, he was conversant with many cases prior to his elevation to the papacy. So he could hit the ground running.
Did Ratzinger have the authority to notify anyone and everyone who did have the power to boot the priest? Did he have the authority to notify the police?
ReplyDeleteI never knew "authority" was required to notify the police of a crime . . .
ReplyDeleteCheck out the discussion in Steve Hays' follow-up post (link). Of course the CDF (formerly known as the Inquisition) does more than just deal with doctrine.
ReplyDeleteThe Supremo Tribunale della Segnatura Apostolica (called the Apostolic Signatura in English) is roughly the "Supreme Court" of Romanism. It would not normally fall to the A.S. to institute procedures to defrock a priest. Indeed, that would not ordinarily fall even to the Roman Rota, which is the court just below the A.S.
The problem is that Bellisario is not that familiar with his own church.
-TurretinFan
Speaking of Bellisario, where'd he go? Does he only participate in discussions anymore in which he sees an easy outlet for insulting me and other Reformeds?
ReplyDelete