Maureen Dowd of the New York Times is taught a lesson in fidelity by NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez.
New York Times is outed as a hack newspaper; Italian documents used against Benedict were improperly translated with... Yahoo translator. Seriously.
A great article that lays it all out: "The Atomic Eros & the Hatred of the Church" by James M. Wilson of Front Porch Republic.
Cardinal William Levada pans the New York Times for the irresponsible reporting. Click here.
As a full-time member of the Roman Curia, the governing structure that carries out the Holy See’s tasks, I do not have time to deal with the Times’s subsequent almost daily articles by Rachel Donadio and others, much less with Maureen Dowd’s silly parroting of Goodstein’s “disturbing report.”
The definitive article on this smear campaign of Pope Benedict XVI has now arrived (click here): Then-presiding judge for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee gives first-person account of the church trial, and corrects/embarrasses the shoddy reporting commonly found in The New York Times.
Here's a snip:
I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy’s trial from ground zero.
As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing out of a sense of duty to the truth.
The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.
My intent in the following paragraphs is to accomplish the following:
To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;
To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;
To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured;
To set the record straight with regards to the efforts made by the church to heal the wounds caused by clergy sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history.
Original post...
That's right. We will break with our usual light and cute stories of our children with some serious business. I have sat by and watched Pope Benedict get tarred and feathered by the liberal media, and I have seen enough of this trash.
Below is a screen shot of MSN's shoddy coverage. When first updated, one story headline read: "Pope describes touching boys: 'I went too far'" Absurd. Is this really a "typo"? The news organization, harangued by anti-defamation organizations, fixed the title. Yet, look at these headlines: is that objectivity?
It's time to set the record straight. I have chosen to write in this venue because there may be friends and family who read this blog who are only hearing the garbage uncritically reported by the leftist media. This unfairly fuels the flames of hatred or misunderstanding against the Church, and this is a terrible situation. Estranging Catholics from their own Church as well as making the pope and the Church look foolish to other Christians and non-Christians: this is unfair and a great injustice. I will not tolerate it.
First, I will posit my own observations, and then I will offer links to other alternative news outlets that have more carefully analyzed the situation by actually looking at and sizing up the facts.
My thoughts (in no particular order of importance, but in a logical thought sequence):
1) The abuse of children by priests has been a real problem and is a total abomination. A total outrage. It should not be taken lightly at all. It has happened in the Catholic Church, and it has hurt many people.
2) The abuse of children is not limited to Catholic priests, although from the media coverage one would think so. Any profession or vocation that has authority, trust, and contact with young people is susceptible to abuse and pedophilia. No if's, and's, or but's about it. This is a problem in every institution. Pick up the newspaper and read (in the later pages) about abuse in schools, day cares, sports, extracurricular activities, and any other venue where young people could possibly be alone with an adult.
3) The vast majority of priests are NOT pedophiles or abusers, but looking at the news would suggest that the Church is full of them. Not true. In fact, if I could find the study, the Catholic Church is much lower in cases of abuse than most other institutions.
4) Abuse of minors by priests has NOTHING to do with priestly celibacy. If we were to pay attention at all to abuse that happens in all other institutions we would see not only single men/women, but also married men/women and those with what are now popularly called "partners" embroiled in abuse scandals. In addition, if we were to look at the archives of English newspapers, we would see how well the Church of England has fared with abuse by its married clergy.
5) The vast majority of the abuse of minors by Catholic priests has been perpetrated by homosexual men. Yes, it is true: most cases, by far, are men going after boys. Straight men do not turn into homosexuals after becoming priests. This is not a problem of priestly celibacy but a problem of homosexuality infiltrating the priesthood. Homosexuality is a problem of our society in general.
6) The rules of the Church regarding the discipline of priestly abuse, from even before Vatican II, are very clear on what actions must be taken by local bishops in cooperation with local authorities. There is no secrecy in what should happen. If secrecy has occurred, it is because local priests and bishops have disobeyed Vatican rules. I repeat: the Vatican is the enemy of and weapon against local priestly abuse, not the institution of secrecy and obfuscation.
7) The Church, at her own demise, followed the directives of secular authorities on how to treat priest abusers. Recall how the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality off of its books as being a mental disorder. Secular "experts" advised the Church to "reform" abusers by sending them off to retreats and moving them to a different location. "There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It can be controlled. They will not continue to go after children. There is no connection to pedophilia." And so on, claimed the "experts." This was not the Church's idea, but the advice given by "experts" in the field of psychology. This advice, obviously, was horrendous. The Church should not have listened to the "world" here, but did. Shame on Church leaders for doing so.
8) Despite the wretched advice of "experts" in psychology, local bishops did a terrible job of responding to offenders, especially repeat offenders. No question about it. Many bishops will answer before God for how poorly they handled these cases. So many complaints went unanswered, and repeatedly, by local bishops, and likewise many bishops avoided the situation by simply moving priests around.
9) Although the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the "internal affairs" body of the Vatican, is the ultimate authority on disciplinary measures, the responsibility ALWAYS and FIRST falls on the shoulders of the local bishop. Local bishops have everything they need to deal with an abuse case, and likewise they have access to local police authorities. When this was not done properly (and at times even in secret), it was because the bishop was being irresponsible and weak (and usually unorthodox). The bishop is the head of his Church. The Vatican should not need to get involved and take action for a bishop; the Vatican only deals with official trials AFTER the local bishop has handled the case by removing a priest from ministry. This is likewise the case with the Church's mission to evangelize the world: the pope is the spiritual and juridical head of the Church regarding issues between Churches, the selection of bishops, and lastly the declaration of dogmatic teaching on faith and morals. The pope does not run every local Church; that is what a bishop does. The pope is not a micro-manager. Bishops are in charge of their Churches, and I repeat: many bishops will answer to God for their obfuscation of priestly abuse.
Regarding the case that the media are after in a frenzy:
10) The case, as almost all of the abuse cases, is from over 20 years ago. Let's not forget this fact. The vast majority of abuse cases are from over 20 years ago. So why is the media frenzy raging now? Haven't these stories already boiled over years ago? Is there maybe another motivation for why national media outlets like the New York Times are choosing to pursue the story now?
11) The case in question, as almost all of the abuse cases, occurred during a period when many bishops were unfaithful to Church teaching and, frankly, were homosexual themselves.
12) The case in question: Archbishop Rembert Weakland, a very sick and twisted individual, used Church money, the money of the faithful, to hush-up his gay lover from "coming out" with their relationship. Likewise, this beast of a man spent many thousands and thousands of dollars, wastefully, to wreck the Milwaukee Cathedral. Regarding the case in question, Weakland only bothered to deal with the situation as an attempt to save his own reputation, after years of ignoring it. Only when the faithful cried out publicly in the media did Weakland want swift action. Weakland could have swiftly removed Fr. Murphy from ministry by his own authority, but did not do so. Liberal Catholics, like Archbishop Weakland, hate the Vatican's authority, but when the Vatican can be used as a scapegoat, they want the Vatican to flex its authority. Weakland, now in retirement, has gone recently on record as saying: "The Church ignored me and didn't act swiftly enough." Ironic, eh?
13) Regarding the case in question: local police authorities had dropped the charges and were inconclusive. This is not to say that this was correct. The priest had, in fact, abused children.
14) The accusations against Fr. Murphy occurred over 20 years prior to Weakland's inquiry and the possibility of a canonical trial removing Murphy from the priesthood; at that point, Murphy was quite old, quite ill and near death.
15) Now, look at this from Cardinal Ratzinger's (now Pope Benedict, unfairly being implicated in all this) point of view in 1996-1998:
a) a priest is accused of abuse over 20 years ago (granted, many abuses alleged)
b) local police authorities have been inconclusive in their response
c) local bishops failed to act from the onset: bishops failed and the alleged abuse continued
d) now, in 1996, an openly unfaithful and homosexual bishop (Archbishop Weakland) wants disciplinary action taken, and at the highest levels, against this priest to save his own (Weakland's) reputation. In fact, Weakland is responsible for the continued abuse and obfuscation in the first place. Likewise, the priest is near death.
e) the priest has written Ratzinger, practically on his death bed, and asked for ecclesiastical mercy stating that he is sorry and repented of his wretched sins against children.
f) the local media and faithful have already "outed" the disgraceful situation and all the damage has been done, and Murphy is a disgrace. Likewise, the local Church looks silly. What more can be done at this point? The accused is near death.
g) Ratzinger's secretary, Archbishop Bertone, writes Weakland and drops the formal trial for Fr. Murphy to be laicized (be official removed from priesthood), encouraging Weakland to formally remove Murphy from ministry (which he never attempted); Murphy dies within months of the exchange
16) With all this in mind, can anyone say that Ratzinger (now the pope) is guilty of anything at all here? Is not mercy and forgiveness part of the Christian faith? Would it have even been just for the Vatican's doctrinal office to act at the highest levels when bishop after bishop failed to discipline Murphy at a local level? Does Weakland deserve any credibility, and after so many years of his own scandal? (I repeat: Weakland could have EASILY removed Murphy from ministry himself.) Could this have been avoided from the first moment of suspicion? Who knows, but we cannot conclude that the current pope, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, is guilty of anything.
To top it off:
17) Ratzinger has been the most outspoken member of the Catholic hierarchy, even rewriting the rules to make cracking down on pedophile priests a priority and laicizing priests an easier and quicker process. This was done in 2000 by Joseph Ratzinger. As pope, Ratzinger authoritatively barred homosexuals from the seminary. He has repeatedly referred to the "filth" in the priesthood, most notably during the 2005 Stations of the Cross as cardinal.
18) The period of time during which most of the abuse took place was during the so called "post conciliar period" after Vatican II, when many bishops, priests, and nuns/sisters took to being unfaithful to Church teaching. The Church, under the guidance locally by "liberal" or "progressive" bishops was witness to weak leadership, poor catechesis, terrible seminary formation, liturgical abuses, and the abuse of minors by Catholic priests. Hence the cooperation with "experts" in psychology to deal with pedophile/homosexual priests. To boot, many of these "progressive" bishops were homosexuals themselves. The point is that many liberals hijacked the Church after the council, and they did so very effectively. That is why so many Catholics today do not know Scripture, doctrine, or the Mass and the other Sacraments.
19) The leftist media is in a campaign to smear the current pope's reputation, and at all costs. They hate the pope and the direction in which he is reorienting the Church. It is odd how the media rails against the pope's and the Vatican's authority in the Church, but when it is useful for the media they accuse the Vatican of not acting swiftly and authoritatively enough in local issues (issues that local bishops should take care of).
20) It is a disgrace and an irony that the homosexual, leftist (former) Archbishop Rembert Weakland has come out of his retirement to speak against the pope on this matter of Fr. Murphy; an issue that was in fact his own scandal! To the media, Weakland is a useful idiot. The media promotes the homosexual agenda all the time, but rails against pedophilia (by gays). What sense does this make? Weakland is taking advantage of the issue to corrupt Benedict's moral authority, which he sees as destroying the liberalism of the Church that dominated the 70's and 80's (the period of the worst abuses). Weakland has a personal axe to grind with the current pope and his orthodoxy.
21) The pope has moved the Church significantly back into the right direction through:
a) the appointment of solid, orthodox bishops
b) excellent catechesis on the Church
c) the many books he has published
d) his work on the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church
e) definitive documents under his leadership: Dominus Iesus and Summorum Pontificum
f) the reintegration of traditional formulae of Catholic doctrine
g) the investigation of religious communities (lacking purpose and orthodoxy)
h) the universal barring of homosexuals from the seminary
i) the defining of Vatican II with a view of "continuity" with the pre-conciliar Church
j) and possibly most importantly, the reintegration of the traditional Latin Mass of 1962
k) the document Anglicanorum Coetibus which has ushered in a great number of traditional Anglicans back into the Catholic Church: we have a pope of Christian Unity
22) It is worth noting that people are outraged by these abuse scandals because they do see the power of Christ's lofty call of discipleship, and how so many priests have not followed it. This lofty vision, too, is seldom upheld by any other institutions besides the Catholic Church. Yet, most people who uncritically analyze these situations never notice that they are, in a sense, praising Catholic teaching with their righteous anger. Unfortunately, many of those who rail against priestly abuse, do so only to strengthen some leftist agenda rather than to defend the truth.
Well, here are some links to more critical analysis of this absurd story:
Click here: A Response to the New York Times by Fr. Raymond de Souza
Click here: An Italian newspaper parses the New York Times hit-piece
Click here: It's the Pope's Turn to Retaliate by Gerald Warner of the Scotsman
Click here: Scoundrel Time(s) by George Weigel
Other responses in the press:
"Shame on the New York Times" says Michael Sean Winters (America Magazine which is hardly a conservative outlet or friend of the pope):...
I will grant that there is something to the argument that the victims’ right to have their story told, to receive justice for the crimes against them, demanded a canonical trial of the priest no matter his physical condition. I will grant that there is a coldness in the correspondence that seems more focused on the reputation of the Church than on the rights of the victims. I will grant that it was the victims of this priest’s abuse, not Cardinal Ratzinger, who had a right to decide when and how to show mercy to Father Murphy. It is not difficult to see that Cardinal Ratzinger might have made the wrong decision in this case, but I submit that there is nothing in the documents the Times presents that suggests Cardinal Ratzinger’s moral culpability for the abuse itself or for any cover-up of that abuse. And the Times article certainly suggests moral culpability even though the documents do not support the charge.
The Pope and the Murphy case: what the New York Times story didn't tell you - Phil Lawler (CatholicCulture.com) examines the evidence and finds that
... his is a story about the abject failure of the Milwaukee archdiocese to discipline a dangerous priest, and the tardy effort by Archbishop Weakland--who would soon become the subject of a major scandal himself--to shift responsibility to Rome.
Lawler lists six notable points:
The allegations of abuse by Father Lawrence Murphy began in 1955 and continued in 1974, according to the Times account. The Vatican was first notified in 1996: 40 years after Church officials in Wisconsin were first made aware of the problem. Local Church leaders could have taken action in the 1950s. They didn't.
The Vatican, following the standard procedures required by canon law, kept its own inquiries confidential. But the CDF never barred other investigations.
Milwaukee's Archbishop Cousins could have suspended Father Murphy from priestly ministry in 1974, when he was evidently convinced that the priest was guilty of gross misconduct. He didn't.
Having called the Vatican's attention to Murphy's case, Archbishop Weakland apparently wanted an immediate response, and was unhappy that the CDF took 8 months to respond. But again, the Milwaukee archdiocese had waited decades to take this action.
This was, in effect, the final result of the Vatican's inquiry in this case; Father Murphy died just months later.
The correspondence makes it clear that Archbishop Weakland took action not because he wanted to protect the public from an abusive priest, but because he wanted to avoid the huge public outcry that he predicted would emerge if Murphy was not disciplined.
Damien Thompson (The Times UK) "smells a stitch up":
Murphy? Guilty as hell. Various bishops? Likewise. But the fact that in 1996 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger may have approved the decision not to pursue complex canonical procedures against Murphy on the grounds that the guy was dying anyway doesn’t strike me as much of a smoking gun.
I do, however, get the very strong feeling that the Pope’s enemies, including his enemies in the Church, are trying desperately hard to discover serious complicity on his part in a child abuse case. Because that would be just so convenient, wouldn’t it?
Thank you for allowing me to set the record straight. Now let's all move on with our normal lives...
No comments:
Post a Comment