From Munich to Milwaukee, scandal dogs Benedict
The latest revelation, a direct hit on Joseph Ratzinger’s credibility in a New York Times story running tomorrow:
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.
How much damage will this do? Read the rest of the story here.
I would think the more that comes out like this, the worse. But you never know. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Thank God for English common law and civil discovery procedures, otherwise none of the secret documents would have been released.
Weakland did his best against a shameful Vatican system. The noise about Crimen and the 2001 instruction not preventing reports to civil authorities is less than convincing in light of the sharp policy of concealment that defined the very air in chanceries. And in light of bishops’ own admitted confusion on the point.
If reports to civil authorities were authorized in the church’s handling of allegations (as Lombardi claims), why these horrible consequences for two priests who did contact police – losing their positions and basically getting drummed out of their dioceses?
Fr. John Conley http://www.sanfranmag.com/story/man-who-keeps-secrets
Fr. Bruce Teague http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/032302_priests.htm
My question is was he allowed in 1996 to minister to children? This does not seem to be clear from the article. Secondly, if he could be isolated and prevented from ministering to children, what is the need to defrock? I understand that the crimes are horrible. Certainly the victims should be attended to and helped. But to defrock for no reason may be more vindictive than merciful. From the materials cited in this article the priest in 1996 was not allowed to involve himself with children anymore. No question in the previous forty years church officials were woefully irresponsible. But the article seems to center on 1996.
“To defrock for no reason…” What? 200 boys molested counts as PLENTY of reason. It is unreasonable not to defrock someone who do deeply betrayed his vocation. Statutes of limitations be d*mned.
What I mean Thomas, is that he should be punished. But what is the point to be reduced to the lay state? He should be prevented from leading Mass. The whole point we have made about this mess is to take care of the victims and acknowledge that they were abused and to prevent the predators from dealing with children. But to punish for punish sake is not humane let alone Christian.
This does not excust the terrible neglect by the Vatican then and now. But we must distinguish.
How many more will it take? 200 deaf boys??? 10,000 in Europe? At what point is one morally obligated to say, “I cannot associate with a church that tacitly condoned this.” At what point are you cooperating with evil by showing up each Sunday at Saint So and So and dropping your dough in the basket? I pray that droves of Catholics will find their way, as I have, to the Episcopal Church … where the absence of clericalism and the egalitarianism of true church are like a breath — no, a windstorm — of fresh air. Feel the lightness of your soul as a married man or WOMAN presides at the altar and the ancient words are spoken. It is an amazing experience. One feels so much closer to God in that atmosphere. When I walked in to my local Episcopal church in tears over being bullied by a priest at my then-parish, the pastor (a loving and down to earth woman) literally welcomed me with open arms, and a lovingkindness I have never experienced in the Roman Catholic church. Go, I urge you. Move on to the Episcopalians, where you can focus again on living the Gospel … something the Catholic patriarchy left behind a long time ago. Stay, and you will be condoning the systemic rape and torture of children. It’s your choice.
Dear Anonymous,
Very heart-felt post. But why the anonymity? Since you hold your head high in your local Episcopal Church, why not hold it high here? No need to fear. You raise some very interesting points, and ones that I would like to engage you on, but I do not feel comfortable doing so with no face behind the words.
Peace,
Anthony Andreassi
Some years back George Weigel published a book (which I haven’t read) called “The Courage to Be Catholic.” Articles like the ones in today’s NYT, however, suggest that a more apt title might have been “The Cowardice to be Catholic.” Our leaders, from to bottom, appear to have been acting like a company of poltroons, concerned only with protecting what they consider to be the good name of the Church, though in fact they have managed to betray and destroy it.
Our leaders, as do the rest of us, need desperately to reflect on the kind of courage it takes to be Christian, and to repent, as did Peter, on the meaning of betrayal.
Good question! I am purposely posting anonymously because I do not want to stir up any retribution or backlash from the parish or the priest who bullied me. I was an employee of the parish. I resigned because I felt so unsafe. It was an awful situation and I don’t want to revisit it.
I’m staying. Anon.. my Faith does not depend upon the character of bureaucrats ..BUT what are we to do with weak/failing bureaucrats?? ….Benedict xvi is 83 in a few weeks. Can’t a few senior men go and say for the good of the faithful why not you and your brother retire to a Bavarian village. OR… will the ‘system’ let him hang and bumble around until more revelations that are so certain to occur that no Irish bookie would place a bet that this is the last scandal this month. Is it a requirement to be an ecclesial toady in order to survive in the One Holy Catholic Church??. In the entire history of mankind, when a tribal elder/leader showed cowardice in the face of danger they were immediately replaced.. Bishops…ARISE you have only the silly miter to lose!!!! { If someone blames the media …may his computer crash forever]
Anonymous –
I’m sure that your experience with the priest was a terrible one and am happy you now have a pastor who sympathizes with your feelings.
However, it seems to me that what you “believed in” was not in the Catholic Church. Rather, you believed in the Catholic clergy. You gave your allegiance to those men because you thought that they would give you the truth and the kindness that a holy priest should give to his sheep. You were terribly disappointed, and understandably so.
However, many of us who stay in the Church do not “believe in” the clergy. We *believe THAT* the Catholic Church, with all its terrible faults, is the one founded by Christ for the salvation of sinners. To believe that the clergy somehow literally replaces the Lord is to be guilty of idolatry, It is to make of those men with feet of clay into little godlets and give them undue honor. It is to give them undue loyalty and place confidence in them that the Lord did not intend us to. True, some of them try to tell us that, that is what we *ought* to do, but these are bad men, and you are well rid of them. Would that we were.
” . . . 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.”
————–
A juvenile detention center? (Fox in the chicken coop.)
His last 24 years? (That’s a LOT of last years.)
Buried in his vestments? (Frock.)
“How much damage will this do?” (To whom? To the pope? To the men who were the boys he preyed/prayed upon? To the cops/prosecutors/archbishops/cardinals who “declined to defrock” him?)
The timeline that goes with the story is very helpful in getting a handle on what happened (and didn’t happen) when.
Update: There’s a cache of relevant documents too. (How much can you take?)
Ok. Fair enough. But I really wonder how you can charge the rest of us with “condoning the systemic rape and torture of children” without putting your face behind the charge. I think this is quite unfair
Thanks, Mollie. A careful examination of the time line is crucial.
The brunt of this thread should focus not on the awful treatmen tof one person but the systemic problems the Church -all the way to the Vatican- must face.
Only the admission of the truths of what has transpired, the failures to deal with them and the removal or resignations of responsible persons will get things back on track.
A couple questions: first, although I realize it is standard terminology, think of the implicit message of speaking of someone being “reduced to the lay state.” (This is not an attack–again, it’s standard terminology. But just like calling women “girls” is something we took note of back in the early days of feminism, this language is worth noting.) Our theology of priesthood constructs orders as an “ontological change” the grace of which “conforms” one to Christ in a unique way, rendering him higher than the lay state. That’s why we’re asking about this as a punishment rather than a tool that might have helped keep this man from abusing more kids. The notion of priests as an elite caste who uniquely possess sacra potestas is a powerful inducement to clerical/episcopal inaccountability, clericalism, clerical clubbishness, and protecting the other boys in the club who misbehave. The theology is dangerous, not least to those in the club who take their standing “in persona Chisti” personally.
Second, I really don’t think it is logical to speak of “the Church” apart from the leadership. Indeed, the Church paradigmatically is the people of God, but we are also connected to, responsible to, and responsible FOR the behavior we tolerate from those who lead. We kick money into the plate that supports the work of the hierarchy in Rome, not just the local Church. When the Pope speaks, he has clout because of all of us who remain Roman Catholic. This is Lumen Gentium, yes? So unless we do something, say something, or vote with our feet like Anonymous and countless others, we are supporting the actions of the hierarchy. But the hierarchy does not OWN Catholicism. There are people of God who are Independent Catholics, and Catholic-flavored Protestants of all kinds. To think we leave our tradition when we say BASTA! to Rome is a fallacy. And if the Pope tolerating rape of children isn’t enough for us to speak up or leave, what would it take??
I guess Ratzinger at the CDF was too busy silencing progressive theologians to have time to investigate rape of children. We all have our priorities…
“Update: There’s a cache of relevant documents too. (How much can you take?)”
————
The handwritten report by the social worker was nauseating. I stopped reading about an inch down from the top.
Those who excuse the superiors who continued supplying the predator with fresh prey?
Anonymous, I can certainly respect and hopefully empathize with your experience, and I most certainly respect anyone’s sincere faith journey into a deeper relationship with Christ. But I must say comparisons such as those you make can be invidious. Many people stay in the Catholic Church (including myself) for reasons that go beyond any cleric or even entire hierarchy — reasons of faith and much else. Moreover, if you start going down the comparison track one could certainly cite some of the most odious claims about gays and women, as well as Episcopalians, coming from within your own Anglican Communion, which is not exactly a model of Christian comity at this point.
So you see where this can lead…
CNS has a good piece on Vatican reaction today:
Readers of Weakland’s recent (and very good) autobiography will recall that he himself wasn’t particularly vigorous on these cases except, as the NYT story notes, when it could hurt him or the archdiocese.
On the other hand, I didn’t think this was the most convincing defense from a Vatican official:
Bill Donohue says the NYT story is “the last straw.”
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1810
I assume he does not mean he’s had it with the Pope. But he says he’ll respond in an ad in the Times, which seems like an odd way to protest: Underwriting the very targets of your ire. Then again, some say that’s what mass-going Catholics who are angry at the bishops continue to do.
Go figure.
David and others: I think Lisa says it well above. I am not leaving my faith; I’m leaving Rome. The idea that one would stay for reasons “beyond” the hierarchy puts one on shaky ground, doesn’t it? Because the minute you walk into a Catholic church you are in its grips; there’s not much beyond that except … oh, yeah, THE GOSPEL. Which I personally feel more connected to in my little Episcopal church where everyone is welcome and women are quite acceptable at all levels, etc. Also, I specifically note “Episcopal” as my church, not Anglican. The conservative Anglicans the Vatican is falling all over itself to welcome into the anti-gay/anti-women fold are … not my brothers and sisters, shall we say. There is nothing perfect about the Episcopal Church. But its very structure does not reek of hypocritical, abusive evil. The same can’t be said of the RCC. Believe me, I’ve heard all the arguments about staying, from well-meaning, social justice minded Catholics who say the church NEEDS people of integrity to STAY and save it, blah, blah, blah. There’s just a point, though, where that kind of thinking looks fatuous next to report after report detailing the vicious abuse perpetrated by, hidden by, ENABLED by a sad and sick convention of twisted old men living in palatial comfort in Rome. I honestly believe that if you stay, you are supporting it. Unless you are standing up at Mass and demanding accountability (good luck with that), you are acquiescing. Look at the bishops, look at the crackdown on the nuns, look at the freakishly orthodox young men coming into the priesthood with cassocks… There is no great shakeup or revolution on the way in Catholicism. No lay people will be able to make the slightest difference in this mess. No, it’s broken and beyond fixing. Starting afresh is not for everyone, I guess, but for me it was the only way.
Sad to think of all the hard-working Catholics whose hard-earned money was used to support these predator/priests in their “last years” and to pay for their “treatment” which was bogus/worthless or which they refused to cooperate in.
If priests/bishops were married and had to earn a living, much/most of this would never have happened down the centuries.
This Murphy person was already on the track to trouble in minor seminary. Why was he ordained? Does/did the seal of confession preclude faculty members/rectors of seminaries from recommending against ordination?
CNS tells us this: “Vatican officials who spoke on background said the New York Times story was unfair because it ignored the fact that, at the urging of Cardinal Ratzinger himself, new procedures to deal with priest abusers were put in place in 2002, including measures making it easier to laicize them.”
The CDF is an arm of the Pope. A pope is not subject to canon law unless he chooses to be. He, whether JP II or Benedict or anyone else, can laicize any priest he cares to. In egregious cases of evil behavior it is inexcusable that a pope would not exercise his absolute powers and laicize the priest, and that goes for JP II “the Great”. There are NO excuses for an absolute monarch: the buck stops with him.
Anonymous,
Your latest post reads like it was taken from a 19th century anti-Catholic tract. Have you been reading “The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk”? If not, you might like to pick it up, for you may enjoy it.
Oh–and maybe you should read the Gospels a bit more carefully. Stating that “the anti-gay/anti-women fold are … not my brothers and sisters, shall we say” doesn’t seem to be so Gospel-centered. And I have news for you. Those anti-gay Anglican bishops in Africa think they are part of the same Anglican communion your little Episcopal church is a member of.
And since obviously those of us who remain Catholic are no longer your sisters and brothers, why are bothering with a blog attached to a Catholic magazine. Maybe you should just move on, if only for your own health? For the venom you are spewing here can’t be good for your soul.
ADA
Anonymous: I think you are revealing the heart of your arguments and issues in your latest comment, and I think it is too far off course for discussion here. It is above all an unwarranted and uncharitable generalization about the faith and practice of Catholics, as well as logically problematic: As an Episcopalian you are part of the Anglican Communion — at least for now. You raise some issues that are the basis of a good discussion, but not here, not now, and not as you frame them. Please move on.
PS to Anonymous: Not to pile on, but such charges also cannot be considered in bounds without putting a real name to them. If one cannot do that, for whatever reason, then move on.
David – excellent post. If I may add to Lisa and Ann’s responses:
You must make a distinction in your own faith lives between an institutional led by fallible human beings and the church of faith.
Here is a much better explanation of the challenge ahead for this church of faith:
link to R. Sipe: http://www.richardsipe.com/vatican_connection.htm
Highlights – “……that the current revelations of abuse are the tip of an iceberg; and if the problem is traced to its foundations the path will lead to the highest halls of the Vatican”
“In 1992 an American prelate who had just returned from Rome sat in my office and said bluntly, “The organization to which I belong is rotten from the top down.” He also related a 45-minute visit he had with an American cardinal who was in a long-term intimate relationship with a woman. The cardinal spent 22 minutes (he timed it) bemoaning the fact of the large number of sexually active homosexual priests in his archdiocese. No one has described the clerical structure and current state of affairs better or more clearly than Fr. Brian D’Arcy: “A combination of bad theology, the dysfunctional abuse of power and a warped view of sexuality, have contributed to what the Murphy Report repeatedly refers to as “the systemic failure” to protect the most innocent and the most vulnerable children. I believe that the evil clerical culture which pervades our institution right up to the Vatican bureaucracy itself needs to be dismantled…Part of the human structure of the church is rotten to the core.”
See some personal experience and my reflections on the earlier blog on this same subject – commentts dated from two days ago.
As we keep reading about the abuses that are now rolling through Europe—many American Catholics are extremely upset and wish to do ‘something about it.’
Unfortunately, not dropping the weekly envelope in the collection basket is not the way to go.
I work with parishes, as well as engage in teaching. If people don’t support their parish church—all that happens, is that their parish is placed into the “let’s close St. Mary of Sorrow sand Sufferings.”
And in the end, it is the local people who are then forced to drive to another parish that had a more respectable financial sheet.
Sadly, too, is the fact that these questions can’t be brought up at Pastoral Council Meetings.
This group was originally supposed to introduce a tad of democracy into the parish. Oh, yes, issues of the parish were to be discussed—but other questions were supposed to be allowed as long as the questions were listed on the agenda.
But today, many parishes have members who were hand-picked candidates by the pastor as people who don’t rock any boat. Or worse, many parishes around where I live have only the Financial Council (the only council which parishes MUST have.) These folks don’t ask questions about issues in the church—they only are interested in looking at the ‘bottom line.’
What to do about the abuse?—–write endless letters to the Bishop—in group or individually.
If he has an e-mail address—e-mail him. He will at least, get the message, that the people ‘out there’ are aware, are watching, and want accountability.
Interesting. “Please move on,” from the author??? Looks like I hit a nerve. David, I am sorry you read my response as something so awful. I’ve seen much worse on here, usually from the rightwing section, so I’m amazed you’re chastising me so rudely. I’d like to know why you think “the heart of my arguments” are so off course for discussion and so poorly framed, but gee I’ve been put in the corner with the dunce cap on. I have admired your writing for a long time. So disappointing to get such, well, uncharitable, treatment from you. And Anthony, I read Commonweal because I have a lot of baggage related to Catholicism, in good and bad ways. And I (used to) consider Commonweal a bastion of reason in Catholic discourse. My bad, apparently.
I’ll leave you “gentlemen” to your higher level discourse. Good luck with your consciences.
The documents are truly sad to read. A particularly incredible instance was when Archbishop Cousins went to hear the complaints of the faculty at the school for the deaf against Fr. Murphy — and Fr. Murphy served as the interpreter. Honestly, is it possible to be any more insensitive than that?
And of course it is also troubling to see the CDF, which was supposedly reformed by Paul VI to be a positive source of understanding Church teaching and promoter of theological education, inching back to its old all-powerful Holy Office status, deciding penalties, interpreting law, interjecting itself into canonical cases and other activities which have absolutely nothing to do with the Doctrine of the Faith. And now its power is being extended to appointing prelates for the new Anglican uniate system — also something that is entirely outside the stated purpose of this dicastery. Cardinal Ottaviani would no doubt be thrilled.
The report on the SNAP protest at the Vatican is not pretty: Barbara Blaine and three other led away by police for questioning, passports confiscated.
And this:
Anonymous, again, I am in sympathy with your “baggage” and sorry to disappoint a fan (I don’t have that many to spare), but this isn’t the place to argue that your church is better than mine, or vice versa, nor do I think that is a useful argument for you or us, or coming from someone whose identity and credibility we cannot verify. If your goal was to “hit a nerve,” well, that’s easily done by anyone to anyone else. We’d like to aim higher here.
‘This is a pretext for attacking the Church,” he said. “There is a well-organized plan with a very clear aim,” he said, without spelling out who was behind it.’
As a long time VOTF member I was hoping that maybe that ‘well organized plan’ meant he was talking about VOTF.. nagh.. I asked him and it’s not us … :-)
I found, as I’ve previously done, the Sipe article linked by Bill D. as persusive.
Many of the things he says, a lot here still don’t want to face up to, but, the main point is we’re seeing more of the”tip of the iceberg” removed as documents appear and truth comes out.
Not only Bill Donohue but others close to the hierachy will rush to protect them as they try to protect themselves and especially Rome. Of course as they defend, they’ll accuse those who point out the evil as “attackers.”
This is part of a moral rot of dishonesty in the name of institutiuonal protection that continues and, unfortunately, I predict, will continue.
Leaving the Church means leaving the Body of Christ -it’s not all about the hierachy.
That said, the hierachy certainly seems to think it’s all about them which is one of the reasons Sipe is right and the cover ups are part of the game.
One last word: when the proverbial hit the fan in a big way in Boston in 2002, there had to be some action. How much it’s solved all ptoblems is highly conjectural to say the least.
Archbishop Dolan’s latest blog post acknowledges the gravity of the Church’s sins and yet offers a vigorous “counter-perspective,” the crux of which is that the Church is being unfairly singled out for sins that have emerged in all different fields (where non-celibacy and transparency exist to a much greater degree), and which, for a time in the 70s and 80s, were considered “treatable” (as bizarre as that now seems). I’ve seen Archbishop Dolan’s considerations advanced elsewhere (including on this site) and, on first glance, they seem reasonable. However . . .
The Catholic Church cannot be compared to every other organization that deals with children. No other organization claims that its primary employees act “in the person of Christ.” No other organization, or institution, claims that the truth of all reality (i.e., Christ) “subsists” in that organization or institution. Indeed, as addressed elsewhere, Lumen Gentium states that he who hears the Bishop, hears Christ. What other institution makes such extraordinary claims about its capacity to speak about faith and morals?
The reason why the Church gets special heat for their sins is that it sets itself up for a higher fall. The Pope cannot claim to be the “Vicar of Christ,” and the Church cannot claim that Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and the Church cannot claim infallibility in its ex cathedra proclamation about faith and morals, and then expect, when the abuse of children occurs under the Church’s watch, to be treated like a local public school district or the Boy Scouts. People look at the behavior of the Church, compare it to its claims of authority, and think the latter are demonstrably false and hypocritical.
The problem, in other words, is not that the Church is especially evil, it’s that it’s essentially the same as everyone else. And if the Church is so wrong on how to treat pedophile priests, why isn’t the Church equally misguided in other decisions about what is “healthy” for the human person? We can make distinctions all we want about the “office” of the Bishop or the “office” of the Holy Father or about “ex cathedra” versus something lesser; and we can blog to the end of time about how the Church, too, is comprised of sinful individuals. But, pastorally, does anyone think those distinctions matter? Is that what the Church has to do to maintain credibility? How many hairs can the Church continue to split?
Thank you, Matt: “But, pastorally, does anyone think those distinctions matter? Is that what the Church has to do to maintain credibility? How many hairs can the Church continue to split?”
You have answered your own question well, very well.
BTW, The video of the deaf man’s daughter describing her father’s meeting with the bishop and two Vatican representatives is nauseating.
As for Vatican police, they ended up doing a great service for the survivor cause by arresting victims of priest sexual abuse. That’s just the appropriate image you want, huh? Keep it up, guys. Passports confiscated, wonderful. Indictment and trial to follow?
I’ve been at enough SNAP gatherings to understand there is no threat of violence or harm when a small group of survivors seeks the release of documents to reveal the truth. It will be instructive to see how much influence the Vatican has with police officials, and what penalties can be arranged for an “unauthorized” demonstration.
Benedict says he wants the truth known. I doubt he really means that.
FWIW, here is the Archbishop Dolan blog entry that Matt Emerson refers to:
http://blog.archny.org/?p=581
I agree that “everyone else does it, too” is a little weak. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard, for some of the reasons that Matt mentions. That we have failed to do so, may God and the victims forgive us.
What’s really sad and sick about this is that guys like Weakland, a successor to the apostles by virtue of his ordination to the episcopacy, still has to grovel to the Vatican to get permission to do the right thing: defrock this miscreant priest. What in the hell is wrong with this church, when grown, intelligent, capable men who know how to manage the lead their dioceses still need permission from faceless, nameless careerist bureaucrats to do what, in civil society, would be DEMANDED of someone in a comparable position? Power brings a man many luxuries, but a clean pair of hands is seldom among them.
I’ve quoted these before and I’ll continue to quote them because the truth will hopefully make us free of and from this growing sickness of ecclesiastical self-preservation:
“Authority resides in a person who by actions as well as words invites trust and confidence. It rests neither on external legitimization nor on power but on trustworthiness, or in Augustine’s words, on truth. Its purpose is to clarify and illuminate, i.e., to aid understanding, and its instrument is argument, not coercion. The first question a Christian intellectual should ask is not ‘what should be believed’ or ‘what should one think,’ but ‘whom should we trust?’ ”
Robert L. Wilken, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Virginia, The Christian Intellectual Tradition, First Things, June/July 1991.
“What you need is sustained outrage…there’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority.” Molly Ivins
“You’re as sick as your secrets.” Fr. Mychal Judge, OFM
“Archbishop Dolan’s latest blog post acknowledges the gravity of the Church’s sins and yet offers a vigorous “counter-perspective,” ”
Matt Emerson –
Everything that I’ve read indicates that this is not a problem of “the Church’s sins”. My reading indicates strongly that the whole Church has NOT sinned against these children. The problem has been almost exclusively *the clergy’s sins”.
As to the laity (and others) being equally abusive in their own spheres, well, I wonder. It used to be that the faculties of the Catholic schools were composed almost exclusively of nuns, priests and brothers. but by the 60′s and 70′s that was changing, and it is my understanding that now most of the teachers are lay people. If we compare the proportion of priests and religious who have been abusers in the schools from, say 1970 to now, how does that compare with the proportion of lay teachers in the Catholic schools who have been abusers? A comparison of those cohorts — clerical/religious teachers and lay teachers would be quite interesting. No, it wouldn’t tell us about the wider culture, but it might tell us something highly significant about “the Church”.
Donohue, Dolan (especially given his history credentials) have very short memories when they throw around the anti-catholic media stuff. Yes, there has been anti-catholic bias in our history and probably you can find it today.
But, there also were powerful currents in society, New York City, etc. that kept the media silent and in line.
The history of Cardinal Spellman is especially apt given Dolan’s comments about sexual abuse or inappropriate behavior.
Excerpts about Spellman:
“John Cooney, one of Spellman’s biographers, cited four interviewees who stated that Spellman was homosexual. While Cooney’s book offered no direct proof, Cooney was convinced of the veracity of the claims. “I talked to many priests who worked for Spellman and they were incensed, dismayed and angered by his conduct.”
Journalist Michelangelo Signorile, who describes Spellman as “one of the most notorious, powerful and sexually voracious homosexuals in the American Catholic Church’s history”, reported that Cooney’s manuscript, The American Pope, initially contained interviews with several people with personal knowledge of Spellman’s homosexuality, including researcher and historian C. A. Tripp. According to Signorile, the church pressured Cooney’s publisher, Times Books, to reduce the four pages discussing Spellman’s sexuality to a single paragraph. There is a report that during World War II Spellman was carrying on a relationship with a male member of the chorus in the Broadway revue One Touch of Venus. Monsignor Eugene V. Clark, Spellman’s personal secretary of 15 years, asserted that the allegations were “utterly ridiculous and preposterous.”
Excerpts about Spellman:
About Archbishop Dolan and his track record with sex abuse …. BishopAccountability.org
The Abp. is just being part of the good loyalty system that seeks to minimze and do damage control – that’s what he’s supposed to do.
The argument that others do it too so we should be judged like everyone else should really bounce back – coverups, aidin gand abetting, etc. how many bishops should have moved on long ago – not to mention the honored retired Law from Boston?
It’s not a pretty picture.
Blaming media and greedy lawyers(we don’t hear that much anymore, do we? -I guess Church lawyers are now the wise counsel to Bishops and USCCB -how much do they get paid? another secret?).
Sans honesty about what has transpired and real acceptance of responsibility by leadership, the beat will go on….
I think the issue of defrocking is not especially relevant. A priest can be prevented from being given access to the targets of abuse without being laicized, and a defrocked priest might continue to have access to potential victims. These issues of church governance might be symbolically important, but unless continuation in the priesthood makes it difficult for church authorities to prevent further abuse, I don’t think it’s the true problem here.
Likewise, using the criminal justice system without laicizing a priest would be more effective than laicizing without referral for possible prosecution. Priests are not exempt from sexual abuse offender databases.
The goal is to protect children.
“I think the issue of defrocking is not especially relevant. A priest can be prevented from being given access to the targets of abuse without being laicized, and a defrocked priest might continue to have access to potential victims. ”
Hi, Barbara, within the sphere of church law, it’s a permanent penalty – once a cleric is laicized, there is no recourse for reinstating to the clerical state, if I’m not mistaken. At the very least, it prevents the abuser from being shipped to another diocese, or reinstated into ministry by some future bishop.
Of course, he should also be subject to the full brunt of criminal prosecution.
The priest won’t have further access to children through his duties as a priest but he could still work in other settings with children unless those other potential employers have some understanding of his history of abuse. Defrocking neither guarantees nor precludes that.
Defrocking doesn’t preclude anything, sure, but *not* defrocking keeps the guy on the payroll, right? Why should contributions from the faithful go toward housing and feeding and clothing someone who betrayed his organization, his vows, his people so completely? Fire the jerk.
Ann: Thanks for your comments. I understand your desire to distinguish between the clergy and laity and, to be sure, the term “Church” must be used precisely. For my part, I suppose I used a more inclusive word because, ultimately, we’re in this together. I don’t want to pit any group against any other. I know some outstanding priests who give witness to Christ like no others. I’ve also met laity who scandalize as much as any Bishop has. So, rather than single out, I think it’s important to remember that we are all the Church, and it’s the Church as a whole that suffers. Still, though, I sympathize with your comments.
JimmyMac: Your frustration is well articulated and shared.
As for further thoughts . . . I come to this discussion with deep sadness and a desire for answers. I didn’t ask my questions merely rhetorically. I love the Church and I want to follow its teachings. I want to give it the benefit of the doubt. I want it to be right. Right now, though, I feel like Peter after Jesus’s shocking discourse on the bread of life. In the face of my frustration and bewilderment, I too ask, “To whom shall we go?”
I read Archbishop Dolan’s blog because Archbishop Dolan’s reflections have nourished my own efforts to follow Christ. His installation homily in NYC moved me deeply, and I have often read his blog for a helpful spiritual tidbit. And, interestingly, no person has done more to sustain my faith in both Christ and Catholicism than the current Bishop of Rome, whose writings have shown a depth of intellect and awareness of humanity that leave me in awe. Indeed, the section on the holiness of the Church in the Pope’s “Introduction to Christianity” stands out as one of the more helpful reflections on just how to deal with the sin that exists within the clergy and laity.
I am not trying to disband or tear down or turn away. But our Church is at a critical moment, and its adherents must ask difficult questions, must plead for clarity. I want to know how to process this, what the framework or, for lack of a better word, the “type” is: do we look, as a former professor of mine suggested, to Augustine on the Donatists? Do we look to Peter’s denial of Christ and subsequent comeback?
JimmyMac: meant to ask–how do you think the Robert Wilken excerpt can help guide our response to the latest round of disappointment?
I agree with much that has been said here about the scandal of sexual abuse by the clergy and the failure of the hierarchy to deal with it properly. But, with no particular axe to grind, I have read the NY Times piece as carefully as I know how. What i see are the following points.
1. Fr. Murphy abused a number of children repeatedly for a number of years.
2. In the late ’90s Archbishop Weakland and perhjaps others concluded that Fr. Murphy ought to be reduced to the lay state. In the course of their investigations, they determined that the case had to be referred to Rome.
3. At this juncture, Fr. Murphy was elderly and ill.
4. Also at this point the civil authorities had decided not to prosecute Fr. Murphy for what he had done.
5. Ecclesiastical proceedings against Fr. Murphy were begun, with the concurrence of Cardinal Bertone.
6. Fr. Murphy writes to the CDF and asks that, in view of his age and his poor health, he be spared from the ecclesiastical action and thus be allowed to conclude his life as a priest.
7. Cardinal Bertoie, apparently with the agreement of the present pope, decided to grant Fr. Murphy’s request.
I ask: What was wrong with granting Fr. Murphy’s request? If the victims were calling for action against Fr. Murphy, in all likelihood they deserved a hearing and an explanation of why no ecclesiastical penalty was being imposed on him. But did they have a right to claim that granting mercy to Fr. Murphy under these circumstances was wrong? I, for one, take it to be a hallmark fo Christianity that mercy is always in order, especially for those who ask for it.
Somewhere I seem to have read that Archbishop Weakland doubted that Fr. Murphy was really repentant. Given the unavoidable difficulty of knowing who repents to what degree about what deeds, what’s wrong with Cardinal Bertone or the present pope giving Fr. MUrphy the benefit of the doubt?
Again, i agree that the victims deserved to know that their pain had been taken into consideration in a serious way. But how could they, or any of us, claim to deserve that no mercy be shown?
I’m prepared to be told that I’m missing something> But, just telling me that the victims have not gotten the satisfaction they believe they deserve is enough to show that Cardinal Bertone and the pope acted wrongly in granting the mercy Fr. Murphy asked for.
I know one pedophile priest who has remained with his religious order and is in fact in charge of infirm religious who admire the care he gives and provides for them. He is not allowed to minister to adults or children and is closely watched. So a situation where children are protected and the offendor accounted for while doing useful work is possible. this way the person is made to earn his keep while being useful to others. Always the first priority is to protect children. But absolute condemnation may not be a good idea. I say this as one who remains angry and nauseated at any abuse of children. But mercy with restrictions is possible.
Somewhere I seem to have read that Archbishop Weakland doubted that Fr. Murphy was really repentant. Given the unavoidable difficulty of knowing who repents to what degree about what deeds, what’s wrong with Cardinal Bertone or the present pope giving Fr. MUrphy the benefit of the doubt?
It was a social worker who said he showed no remorse …
-Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland in 1993 hired a social worker who interviewed Father Murphy and reported that the priest had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse.
– CNS
People who are sorry for what they’ve done might be forgiven, yes, by the people they injured. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be investigated and prosecuted.
Is there any a saint in history who dealt with sexual abuse by clergy, and whose life we could reflect on?
Bernard –
It seems you’re conflating receiving absolution and being granted clemency by a court. Of course, if he confessed his guilt, Fr. Murphy should have been forgiven and given absolution, but only if he confessed his sins, admitted his guilt, AND later offered apologies and tried to make amends to those he had injured. There is no evidence, so far as I can see, that he did the latter.
Given that he was either unrepentant or innocent, was his age a reason to avoid a court trial? I’m very old too, and I’d say No unless he was really dying. Why? Because the boys should have come first, especially given the over-whelming evidence against him. The boys needed to be vindicated if possible. Justice required it.
In other words, Confession is about Charity. Courts are about justice, with Charity an alternative but only after the truth has been established.
Claire,
I recall reading that St. Peter Damien dealt with clerical sex abuse in the eleventh century — almost a millennium ago.
Oops — I’m confused. Why was there a question of a trial if Fr. Murphy had admitted his guilt?
Claire, a few suggestions from:
Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church’s 2,000 Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse, by Thomas P. Doyle, A.W. Richard Sipe, and Patrick J. Wall:
Penitential of St. Columban, 600
Penitential of St. Theodore, 690
Penitential of St. Bede, 700
Book of Gomorrah of St. Peter Damian, 1051
Decretals of Gregory IX, compiled by St. Raymond of Peñafort, 1234
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Priests-Secret-Codes-Catholic/dp/1566252652/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1#reader_1566252652
(I apologize for the length of this response, and hope the end product is worth the effort.)
Bernard Dauenhauer ‘s comment is disturbing on a number of levels, but let me try to respond on a few points, relying on my earlier reading of the evidence. I did not memorize the details to have them ready for response, but I don’t have the energy to go back through the whole case. So, my comments are more general than the exacting, detailed rebuttal I prefer.
Actually, my stomach was turning too for me to continue. The first written complaint by a victim in the released documents is dated 1974, 19 years before meaningful review by the archdiocese. Complaints of abuse had been coming in since the 1950’s.
I did make it through most of the social worker’s 1993 notes in stages, where Murphy admitted his guilt with 19 boys between 1952 and 1974, denied contact with 10, but gave a description of the calculated profile of vulnerability he used in selecting victims.
A very effective guide to his thinking: no minority boys who might know more about sex, no overweight kids, parents unavailable or distant, hero-worshipped him, lacking in social skills, etc. etc.
I do not see how anyone could read those notes and assume Murphy is innocent, especially given the social worker’s agreement as to his admitted guilt. She noted Murphy was careful only to acknowledge guilt in cases where an accusation had already been made, though other boys had been identified by classmates as victims.
To answer questions:
1) What was wrong with granting Murphy’s request for mercy?
Let’s first review the record of Murphy through the decades to determine how he was treated. After the 1974 complaint (and 19 others over the years), Murphy moved to the diocese of Superior where he lived initially with his mother. Full cover was provided: on “temporary sick leave,” salary, benefits, pension specified, address kept secret, and no mention of sexual abuse in the letter to the receiving diocese.
-Mercy once, in cover-up of charges over decades;
-Mercy twice in later assignment in northern Wisconsin with a friendly pastor there and work in parishes, schools, and juvenile detention center for the next 24 years.
Interview with the social worker in 1993 following receipt of multiple complaints; admission of guilt, no remorse according to the examiner, and now up to 200 boys.
-Mercy three times in that he was not sanctioned in any way, as best I can tell.
Fast forward to 1996 and 1997 when Weakland, out of fear of public exposure, pursued a canon case with solid evidence of guilt by any reasonable standard of judging the evidence. Written comments focus on anger in the deaf community and fear of scandal. I recall no mention of the pain of victims, no justice or even report to them of any response by the church.
-Mercy four times in the keeping of his good name and the hiding of his abuse.
Murphy writes to Ratzinger on the cusp of a trial, begging mercy, proclaiming remorse where there was none exhibited in fact to anyone.
-Mercy five times in cancellation of a trial.
Disobedience by Murphy’s family in failure to comply with Weakland’s directives about a private funeral. He is buried with full honors of a priest in good standing, as victims perhaps watched in horror.
2) The victims “in all likelihood” deserved a hearing and explanation of the hierarchy’s inaction.
“In all likelihood” should read “absolutely” deserved that small measure of kindness. The survivor in news reports tells of being questioned by the previous archbishop and two Vatican representatives, being told he was lying. He left the meeting in despair.
3) The victims have no right to object to Murphy’s canonical trial being cancelled. I disagree completely. Mercy does not cancel accountability and justice, and had already been shown and taken advantage of in abundance.
4) Murphy should have been given the benefit of the doubt regarding repentance.
Not when he proclaimed it to Ratzinger, but did not in fact exhibit it in the judgment of officials in the US.
5) Satisfaction for victims is not the proper standard where mercy is the issue.
A distorted understanding of all of the above.
Matt Emerson:
R. Reagan was famous for saying “Trust but verify.” How do we do that?
Stanley Kubrick is supposed to have said: “The truth of a thing is the *feel* of it, not the *think* of it.” The only way we can verify something/someone is to ask: does it/(s)he pass the smell test? If it doesn’t smell right, no matter the source, something is wrong. If it doesn’t ring of the truth, something is wrong.
Truth does not consist simply in rote norms by which reality is judged. It is better found in the way the human person responds to a reality in those cases where any other response would falsify the existence of that reality. Truth is sought by accepting what is being called “tradition” with a great deal of salt. Tradition is not a single self-preserving voice issuing orders.
Unexamined and unrevised tradition kept simply for its own sake may cease to communicate truth. If it alienates a body of the faithful, if its scriptural foundation is dubious or reflective of circumstances that no longer apply. Then an alleged essential tie to the gospel must be questioned.
Catholicism in particular and the Christian faith in general cannot be seen as a series of rules to which one assents. When membership in the church is reduced to this, it cannot provide an environment within which people may be transformed. Faith has to do with a relationship with Someone, not something. It is not a party line. Seeing who this Person is, as clearly as we can, is the reason for the church, and nothing else.
I do not trust simple answers to complex questions. To quote a wise man whose utterances are so very applicable in this church at this time:
“Bishops break out in shingles in the face of ambiguity; laity live with it each day in their homes, jobs and social life.
Chancery offices constantly view the faithful as so befuddled that, without unctuous instruction, they would confuse the holy water fountain with a birdbath.”
(Taken from the book “Tim Unsworth”, a collection of his articles in NCR between 1982 and 2007, published by Acta Publications)
I will trust bishops who first of all treat us in a pastoral manner. This means listening as well as preaching. This means treating us as adults and equals in the faith, not as sources of funding to be tolerated rather than respected. This means involving us in the fabric and future of our parishes. This means NOT expecting that their every word to be accepted as gospel just because they say it.
Just a couple of comments in response to Carolyn Disco’s criticisms. First, unless I am mistaken, Civil authorities had already decided not to prosecute Fr. Murphy before Cardinal Bertone halted the canonical trial. I take it that neither Cardinal Bertone nor the pope did anything to influence the decision by civil authorities.
Second, please note that all of my comment had to do with the decisions made by the pope and
Cardinal Bertone about Fr. Murphy’s request for mercy in the trial that came when he was largely incapacitated.
Third, it’s in the nature of the Catholic understanding of forgiveness that it be offered over and over again. 70 times 7. At no point can vengeance rightly take over, whatever the sinner has done.
Did the victims deserve extensive pastoral care to help them understand the importance of Christian forgiveness? Certainly. I’m in no position to know whether they received such care. But in any event, the fact that victims want their victimizer to be punished is surely insufficient to require the relevant authorities to accede to their wishes.
Ann, I had nothing to say about confession or absolution. My comments only touched upon the canonical trial. Though I’m not a canon lawyer, the talk about canonical penalties that were not self-activating in this case indicates, I believe, that there is the equivalent of “prosecutorial discretion” in such matters. One may disagree with any particular exercise of such discretion, but that disagreement does not show that it is clearly wrong.
Carolyn and Ann et al, one afterthought. MY remarks are only about the canonical trial of Fr. Murphy that Cardinal Bertone decided to halt.
I wholly agree that the hierarchy’s handling of the sex abuse issues has been dreadful. The reason I worry about the outcry against Cardinal Bertone and the pope in THIS PARTICULAR CASE is that in situations like this there is an understandable but mistaken tendency to fall into blanket condemnations.
Barbara wrote, regarding laicizing priest abusers:
“The priest won’t have further access to children through his duties as a priest but he could still work in other settings with children unless those other potential employers have some understanding of his history of abuse. Defrocking neither guarantees nor precludes that.”
I agree. I’ve seen that argument mounted in the past by church officials as a reason to not laicize: ‘if he’s still under our care, we can keep an eye on him.’ (But tragically, we’ve seen that this monitoring is not foolproof). I’m curious as to whether you think there is something to this notion that the church can at least keep take a hand in keeping track of active clergy.
I guess my thought is that the church legal system (even when it is functioning as we want it to) can only be responsible for matters within its proper “sphere”. The church as an institution can’t prevent a laicized priest, or any layperson who is not an employee, from preying on children in schools, playgrounds, malls and so on. We need to rely on the civil authorities and the vigilance of parents and the rest of the community.
And of course there is the liability-minimizing side: ‘he’s not a priest anymore so anything he did after laicization is not our problem. Go sue someone else.’
I apologize if I’m taking this in a different direction than what you wanted to discuss. Your comment made me think of this and I am curious about what folks think is the right way to handle it.
“I know one pedophile priest who has remained with his religious order and is in fact in charge of infirm religious who admire the care he gives and provides for them. He is not allowed to minister to adults or children and is closely watched. So a situation where children are protected and the offendor accounted for while doing useful work is possible. this way the person is made to earn his keep while being useful to others. Always the first priority is to protect children. But absolute condemnation may not be a good idea. I say this as one who remains angry and nauseated at any abuse of children. But mercy with restrictions is possible.”
Hi, Bill – I think this is a very difficult call. Maybe there is no rule of thumb that applies in all cases. The McCormack case in Chicago showed that monitoring of offenders, when badly done, can enable further abuse. One of the points that the Protecting God’s Children training makes is that abusers tend to be clever and manipulative, and don’t conform to cultural norms of conduct (e.g. most people, when warned that they are in a compromising situation with a child, will change their behavior). I agree with your and Bernard’s instinct toward mercy, but given the nature of this problem, I guess I’d be very reluctant to rely on monitoring, no matter how well-intentioned.
“Mercy does not cancel accountability and justice,
Carolyn –
I agree, but obviously the bishops, and some of the people on the blog don’t either. They seem to think that feeling sorry is the same thing as repentance. What does Scripture say about this? What does Jesus say about forgiveness besides saying we ought to do it?
I think the theology of all this needs reviewing. A review could begin with these questions:
1. What is mercy?
2. Does mercy cancel out the demands of justice?
3. What is repentance? Does it require an apology?
5. What are the differences between:
a) mercy and charity
b) remorse and repentance
c) forgiving a debt and forgiving a debtor
d) clemency and absolution
Yes, I’m asking for some dull definitions. But if we don’t agree on the meanings of the words we’ll talk past each other, which, I think, is what is happening right now between the Vatican and the media. The Vatican seems to think that to forgive a debtor is the same thing as forgiving a debt and that remorse (feeling dreadfully sorry) is the same thing as repentance.
Ann says that some of the people on the blog “seem to think that feeling sorry is the same thing as repentance.” If Ann thinks that i make this mistake, I hope that she will provide the evidence.
Furthermore, if Ann reads what i have said with a bit more care, she will see that the focus of my remarks was clearly on the decision of Cardinal Bertone, apparently with the concurrence of then Cardinal Ratzinger, to halt a particular canonical trial then underway to determine whether Fr. Murphy ought to be defrocked.
That was my focus, Ann. You may be confused about what I said. I’m not.
Bernard, I note your focus on the canonical trial decision only, the need for forgiveness (70×7), and concern about blanket condemnations. I admit I have to be careful on that last one because of my anger at the “dreadful” handling of abuse. Maybe I am burning out, but the pain of survivors and their vicious treatment by the church is vivid in my mind.
I still think the canon case decision was wrong. In granting mercy to Murphy, Ratzinger apparently failed to do due diligence to learn there were solid admissions of guilt in 1993, with no remorse at all thereafter – despite Murphy’s claims to the contrary. Murphy pleaded not guilty in the Vatican case and lied. So Ratzinger believes him, or discounts the evidence?
Re: forgiveness, I note Avery Dulles: The idea that Christianity enthrones forgiveness in place of justice and teaches universal forgiveness is a gross misunderstanding. ..Even while insisting on the imperative to forgive, Jesus mentions admonition and repentance: “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and IF HE REPENTS, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I REPENT,’ you must forgive him” (Lk. 17:3-4). I find no evidence of repentance by Murphy, just manipulation.
The record of civil authorities in investigations can be as damning as the church’s. The fact that there was no follow-through here means very little, considering how reluctant police have shown themselves to be in countless cases.
We disagree, but I do not want to make that an uncivil matter.
Just want to add one thing, an answer to the question I asked at 11:38 yesterday: I didn’t know that “bishops and religious superiors are forbidden by church law to hear the confessions of priests in their charge.”
(Found that in Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes, by Doyle, Sipe, and Wall.)
Jim – almost all religious communities and dioceses have alleged/confirmed abusers on their payroll and in certain secluded addresses (supposedly, secure and supervised). This is primarily the result because the vast majority of cases (>80%) could not come to trail because of SOLs – they were civil settlements.
The problem with laicization is that it only strips the pedophile of his collar – the church/order washes their hands of the guy. What about their responsibility and accountability to society?
Laicization – remember…ordination changes you ontologically forever. (theology) Laicization basically just removes your clerical rights and status to act in the office of cleric. Rome could always return a laicized man back to an active priest. Canon law allows you to play any games you want.
Bill – so, would you say that, because the abuser abused while a member of the clergy, the church owes it to society to try to keep society out his reach? I suppose there is something to that. I just don’t believe the church would be very good at it :-(.
I’m not certain about canon law regarding re-clericalizing someone in a laicized cleric. Once they’re laicized, they’re banned from the club for good in every instance I’ve ever heard of (even though, as you say, the ontological change can’t be rolled back).
“The reason I worry about the outcry against Cardinal Bertone and the pope in THIS PARTICULAR CASE is that in situations like this there is an understandable but mistaken tendency to fall into blanket condemnations.”
Bernard –
As I see it the reason there is an outcry is because the behavior of Bertone and the Pope reveal an insensitivity at the pinnacle of Church power. It shows that the problem is endemic, not limited to small fry.
As such it is a major part of the scandal.
I realize that you do not want to excuse the higher ups. But there are those on the blog who apparently still look for reasons to think the bishops’ culpability might be less than generally assumed. See Nancy, for instance, or the commenter at 6:33 pm on this thread, who obvsiously still has mixed feelings about the matter, saying, “I love the Church and I want to follow its teachings. I want to give it the benefit of the doubt”. And there have been many others over the course of these discussions who obviously felt the same way, though their confidence in the hierarchy has waned. (I feel terribly sorry for them. They have been betrayed too.)
I myself don’t think that the bishops have generally simply bad man. I have argued that they might have felt caught between law and custom, that they were conflicted and so relied on the usual Church response, silence, But since the initial stages of the scandal it has become clear that the de facto abandonment of the children by many, many bishops resulted in horrible psychological consequences for them. Then it was no longe a matter of conflict of law and custom. The course to take clearly became to act within the law. Many bishops did not do so, and some even at the pinnacle are still resisting.
The issue now is not blanket condemnations. The issue is indiviudual responsibility. Ockhamist that I am, I say it always was individual responsibility, and that Fr. Murphy failed so egregiously that anyone who was willing to give special consideration to this unrepentant monster is failing in his duties. As Carolyn pointed out, Jesus himself said that repentance is a condition of forgiveness, and in Fr. Murphy’s appeal to Cardinal Bertone he was *still* talking about his “alleged” abuses.
No, you did not talk about confession and absolution, and I didn’t say that you did. However, your justification of Bertone’s and the Pope’s non-action appeal to the need for mercy, which makes me think that you have conflated a norm of confession (mercy) with a norm of a trial (justice), In other words, it seems you’ve made a category mistake.