Report: Vatican was warned about priest in Wis. NEW YORK – Milwaukee's Roman Catholic archbishop warned a top Vatican office led by the future Pope Benedict XVI about a priest who may have molested as many as 200 deaf boys, according to documents obtained by The New York Times, but the priest was never defrocked. The documents were provided by two lawyers who have filed lawsuits alleging the Archdiocese of Milwaukee didn't take sufficient action against the Rev. Lawrence Murphy. The priest, who died in 1998, worked at the former St. John's School for the Deaf in St. Francis from 1950 to 1975. In 1996, then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland sent letters about Murphy to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope. Weakland received no response from Ratzinger, the Times reported. Eight months later, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarciscio Bertone — now the Vatican's secretary of state — told the Wisconsin bishops to begin secret disciplinary proceedings, according to the documents. But Bertone halted that process after Murphy wrote to Ratzinger saying he already had repented, was ailing and that the case's statute of limitations had run out, the Times reported. The documents contain no response from Cardinal Ratzinger. Weakland also wrote to a different Vatican office in March 1997, saying an attorney's impending lawsuit would make the case public. The documents emerged even as the Vatican deals with an ever-widening church abuse scandal sweeping several European countries. Benedict last week issued an unprecedented letter to Ireland addressing the 16 years of church cover-up scandals here. But he has yet to say anything about his handling of a case in Germany known to have developed when, as cardinal, he oversaw the Munich Archdiocese from 1977 to 1982. The Rev. Federico Lombardi, a spokesman for the Vatican, said in a statement that the Vatican was not told about the abuse allegations against Murphy until 1996, years after civil authorities had investigated and dropped the case. Lombardi also said that Murphy's age, poor health and a lack of more recent allegations were factors in the decision not to defrock him. He noted "the Code of Canon Law does not envision automatic penalties" and that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested the Milwaukee archbishop consider such things as restricting Murphy's public ministry and requiring that he "accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts." The Times obtained the Murphy documents from Jeff Anderson and Mike Finnegan, attorneys for five men who have sued the Milwaukee archdiocese alleging fraud. The newspaper said the documents included letters between bishops and the Vatican, victims' affidavits, the handwritten notes of an expert on sexual disorders who interviewed Murphy and minutes of a final meeting on the case at the Vatican. Anderson said he would e-mail the documents to the AP on Thursday. He said in a phone interview Wednesday night that they show the Vatican was more concerned about possible publicity than about the abuse allegations. "Instead of removing him from the priesthood, they just gave him a free pass," Anderson said. "In this case, it's a free pass at the highest level." After Murphy was removed from the school in 1974, he went to northern Wisconsin, where he spent the rest of his life working in parishes, schools and, according to one lawsuit, a juvenile detention center. Previously released court documents show Weakland oversaw a 1993 evaluation of Murphy that concluded the priest likely assaulted up to 200 students at the school. Weakland resigned as archbishop in 2002 after admitting the archdiocese secretly paid $450,000 to a man who accused him of sexual abuse. link
It seems like a lot of covering up has been standard practice in the catholic church, and it also seems like Mr. Ratzinger was involved in some of this. It's embarrassing and shameful.
I guess I was lucky, twelve years of catholic school and never witnessed, experienced, or heard of any improprieties in our parish. I never much enjoyed the blindfolded games of "kiss the holy staff" and "healing hands" but I never heard of any kids being molested.
I understand the Catholic Church has done a lot of good, but I can't for the life of me understand why that organization has so much moral authority. Ideology at its' finest?
Just look at the history of the Catholic Church. Before the Protestant Revolution, Catholicism dominated Europe outside of a few Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe. At one point the Pope was the most powerful figure in the world. Catholicism today is simply a legacy of the past. Powerful influence like that doesnt just disappear.
A good article from a long time leading Catholic Newspaper. It attacks the silly rule about celibacy that has led to so many problems for the Catholic Church including the dropping out of many of its good priests. **************** Ratzinger's Responsibility 'Scandalous wrongs cannot be glossed over, we need a change of attitude' Mar. 18, 2010 By Hans Küng Accountability Hans Küng (CNS) Printer-friendly version Send to friend PDF versionAfter Archbishop Robert Zollitsch's recent papal audience, he spoke of Pope Benedict's "great shock" and "profound agitation" over the many cases of abuse which are coming to light. Zollitsch, archbishop of Freiburg, Germany, and the chairman of the German Bishops' Conference, asked pardon of the victims and spoke again about the measures that have already been taken or will soon be taken. But neither he nor the pope have addressed the real question that can no longer be put aside. According to the latest Emnid-poll, only 10 percent of those interviewed in Germany believe that the church is doing enough in dealing with this scandal; on the contrary, 86 percent charge the church's leadership with insufficient willingness to come to grips with the problem. The bishops' denial that there is any connection between the celibacy rule and the abuse problem can only confirm their criticism. 1st Question: Why does the pope continue to assert that what he calls "holy" celibacy is a "precious gift", thus ignoring the biblical teaching that explicitly permits and even encourages marriage for all office holders in the Church? Celibacy is not "holy"; it is not even "fortunate"; it is "unfortunate", for it excludes many perfectly good candidates from the priesthood and forces numerous priests out of their office, simply because they want to marry. The rule of celibacy is not a truth of faith, but a church law going back to the 11th Century; it should have been abolished already in the 16th Century, when it was trenchantly criticized by the Reformers. Honesty demands that the pope, at the very least, promise to rethink this rule -- something the vast majority of the clergy and laity have wanted for a long time now. Both Alois Glück, the president of the Central Committee of the German Catholics and Hans-Jochen Jaschke, auxiliary bishop of Hamburg, have called for a less uptight attitude towards sexuality and for the coexistence of celibate and married priests in the church 2nd Question: Is it true, as Archbishop Zollitsch insists, that "all the experts" agree that abuse of minors by clergymen and the celibacy rule have nothing to do with each other? How can he claim to know the opinions of "all the experts"? In fact, there are numerous psychotherapists and psychoanalysts who see a connection here. The celibacy law obliges the priest to abstain from all forms of sexual activity, though their sexual impulses remain virulent, and thus the danger exists that these impulses might be shifted into a taboo zone and compensated for in abnormal ways. Honesty demands that we take the correlation between abuse and celibacy seriously. The American psychotherapist Richard Sipe has clearly demonstrated, on the basis of a 25 year study published in 2004 under the title Knowledge of sexual activity and abuse within the clerical system of the Roman Catholic church, that the celibate way of life can indeed reinforce pedophile tendencies, especially when the socialization leading to it, i.e. adolescence and young adulthood spent in minor and major seminary cut off from the normal experiences of their peer groups, is taken into account. In his study, Sipe found r****ded psycho-sexual development occurring more frequently in celibate clerics than in the average population. And often, such deficits in psychological development and sexual tendencies only become evident after ordination. 3rd Question: Instead of merely asking pardon of the victims of abuse, should not the bishops at last admit their own share of blame? For decades, they have not only tabooed the celibacy issue but also systematically covered up cases of abuse with the mantle of strictest secrecy, doing little more than re-assigning the perpetrators to new ministries. In a statement of March 16, Bishop Ackermann of Trier, special delegate of the German Bischops' Conference for sexual abuse cases, publically acknowledged the existence of such a cover-up, but characteristically he put the blame not on the church as institution, but rather on the individual perpetrators and the false considerations of their superiors. Protection of their priests and the reputation of the church was evidently more important to the bishops than protection of minors. Thus, there is an important difference between the individual cases of abuse surfacing in schools outside the Catholic church and the systematic and correspondingly more frequent cases of abuse within the Catholic church, where, now as before, an uptight, rigoristic sexual morality prevails, that finds its culmination in the law of celibacy. Honesty demands that the chairman of the German Bishops' Conference should have clearly and definitively announced, that, in the future, the hierarchy will cease to deal with cases of criminal acts committed by those in the service of the church by circumventing the state system of justice. Can it be that the hierarchy here in Germany will only wake up when it is confronted with demands for reparation payments in terms of millions of dollars? In the United States, the Catholic church had to pay some $1.3 billion alone in 2006; in Ireland, the government helped the religious orders set up a compensation fund with a ruinous sum of $2.8 billion. Such sums say much more about the dimensions of the problem than the pooh-poohing statistics about the small percentage of celibate clergy among the general population of abusers. 4th Question: Is it not time for Pope Benedict XVI himself to acknowledge his share of responsibility, instead of whining about a campaign against his person? No other person in the Church has had to deal with so many cases of abuse crossing his desk. Here some reminders: •In his eight years as a professor of theology in Regensburg, in close contact with his brother Georg, the capellmeister of the Regensburger Domspatzen, Ratzinger can hardly have been ignorant about what went on in the choir and its boarding--school. This was much more than an occasional slap in the face, there are charges of serious physical violence and even sexual abuse. •In his five years as Archbishop of Munich, repeated cases of sexual abuse at least by one priest transferred to his Archdiocese have come to light. His loyal Vicar General, my classmate Gerhard Gruber, has taken full responsibility for the handling of this case, but that is hardly an excuse for the Archbishop, who is ultimately responsible for the administration of his diocese. •In his 24 years as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, from around the world, all cases of grave sexual offences by clerics had to be reported, under strictest secrecy ("secretum pontificum"), to his curial office, which was exclusively responsible for dealing with them. Ratzinger himself, in a letter on "grave sexual crimes" addressed to all the bishops under the date of 18 May, 2001, warned the bishops, under threat of ecclesiastical punishment, to observe "papal secrecy" in such cases. •In his five years as Pope, Benedict XVI has done nothing to change this practice with all its fateful consequences. Support independent Catholic journalism. Honesty demands that Joseph Ratzinger himself, the man who for decades has been principally responsible for the worldwide cover-up, at last pronounce his own "mea culpa". As Bishop Tebartz van Elst of Limburg, in a radio address on March 14, put it: "Scandalous wrongs cannot be glossed over or tolerated, we need a change of attitude that makes room for the truth. Conversion and repentance begin when guilt is openly admitted, when contrition1 is expressed in deeds and manifested as such, when responsibility is taken, and the chance for a new beginning is seized upon." [Fr. Hans Küng is a theologian and author of many books, including Does God Exist: An Answer for Today and Infallible?: An Inquiry.] http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/ratzingers-responsibility
European kings sucked at governing and educating their people. And at acctually explaining why they deserved to be in power. And the UN, NATO and EU hadn't been invented yet. Or charitable NGOs, psychotherapy, or the History Channel/Oliver Stone movies. For 1,500 years. And for a while they were like TBS: broadcasting Christendom, Andy Griffiths re-runs and Atlanta Braves games to the Southern Hemisphere before any one else thought to.
So of this is true should the Pope resign (or how they call it). You cannot have a religious leader who knew about this stuff and didn't do anything. Ofcourse Vatican city will deny, and in time this will blow over. Just sad.
At the minimum it is time to get some more men and women with childrent into the priesthood. Very few married men and women would tolerate the type of sexual abuse that Ratzinger and the other celibates have tolerated.
I agree with you. Also, there have been similar cases in his own sphere of responsibility in Germany in which he seemed more interested in covering up than in bringing these people to justice. He seems like a nice old man, but he is ultra-conservative and certainly not a reformer within the church. The catholic church needs reformation badly, and they have to start with things such as the ridiculous celibacy rules and their attitude towards condoms and contraception.
Of course they knew. This has been reported repeatedly. Did the pope know explicitly? Not sure - I would guess they were warned of the situation.
Pope Benedict XVI 'knew child abuser allowed back to work' The Roman Catholic Church’s account of Pope Benedict XVI’s handing of a serial paedophile was called into question today when new documents emerged suggesting that his office was kept informed of the offender’s rapid return to working with children. Contrary to statements released by the Church in Germany, a memorandum uncovered by The New York Times suggests that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was told that a priest had gone back to pastoral duties in Munich a few days after he started psychiatric treatment. The priest went on to commit further offences. The latest child abuse scandal to hit the Catholic Church involves a German priest, Father Peter Hullermann, who was convicted of molesting boys in 1986. Victims have complained that repeated warnings were ignored by the Church over decades of abuse. In 1980, the Pope was the Archbishop of Munich overseeing the archdiocese in which Father Hullermann was given a few days of treatment after sexual abuse allegations and then told he could return to work. link
