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.
Why am I not surprised…god weeps
Before anyone comments negatively toward the Vatican, I remind you that this is the NY Times, which is vehemently anti-church, and takes every opportunity to cast it in a negative light. Also, the Church does/ought not discipline the way secular agencies and governments do. Everyone must be dealt with charitably. I am confident the Vatican will deal effectively with clerical perpetrators, especially in light of all the cases in the news. But it shouldn’t be a public affair. Besides, rather than “defrocking” priests, in many cases, there are other things that priests can do in the Church than be in pastoral ministry.
I think a few facts need to be brought up. The incidents of abuse happened mostly around 40 years ago. The accusations were officially made in 1974 more than 20 years after the abuse. These accusations were made both to the police and the diocese. After an investigation the police declined to press any charges. The Diocese removed the priest from public ministry. (I don’t know if it was from all public ministry or just from that with children.)
In 1994 while the priest was outside of the Diocese of Milwaukee, it was discovered he was continuing his public ministry. It was at this point that then Bishop Weakland requested the priest be defrocked. There had been no accusations against the priest since the 1974 allegations.
The Diocese had been criticized for their handling of the case. Defrocking the priest at the time the letter to the Vatican was written would not have protected any children. If Weakland had been concerned he could have made sure the priest stayed in the Mil. diocese under strict watch to make sure he did not violate the condition of not conducting any public ministry, at least when it involved children.
Weakland’s letter was a case of CYA. As he must have known any effective discipline should have been handled at diocesian level to limit contact with children. 40 something years after the event a defrocking would not serve any useful purpose for a priest who at that point was dying and had finally been removed from public ministry.
The website Bishop Accountability has a good review of the case.
I am curious how many criminal cases against child abusers (sexual or otherwise) does the NYT think actually go to full blown trial? And if keeping investigations confidential (especially those that involved children) presumptions of innocence and applying a statute of limitations to certain charges are such great evil how the heck does NYT stomach the constitution, state statute and other rules of law? Oh wait maybe they don’t.
This is why I will never consider joining the One Infallible Church. Christianity demands that we care for the widow and the orphan. The church molested these boys and then covered it up. And the respondents here? Why, they plead for this to be kept a private matter, and for us to remember that this happened many years ago.
Justin, you commit a gross misrepresentation of what I and others have posted. Correct yourself please.
OK then 2 things:
First, Cardinal Ratzinger was not in the Vatican in 1974.
Second, he was later head of the department called “Doctrine of the Faith” which is concerned with exactly what the name indicates.
A completely different department oversees cases concerning clergy. Doctrine of the Faith has [i]no jurisdiction[/i] over clergy abuse cases.
Similarly, the cases brought up which seemed to implicate the Pope’s brother in Germany occurred before his brother became choir master and did not happen during his own tenure.
Might I suggest that TLDillon and others try to keep their heads clear? It seems to be that there are those who would like to take this Pope down and the Roman Catholic Church with him.
Let’s not help them
Sorry, Catholic apologists, but there is NO defense or excuse for allowing a priest to rack up 200 sexual assault victims. NONE. That the victims were deaf children makes it especially heinous and repulsive.
Rembert Weakland himself had one or more sexual “challenges”. If the
local bishop of a Catholic diocese has control over various
appointments of clerical personnel, why didn’t Weakland himself make
the change ? I don’t think there was any need whatsoever to “kick it
upstairs” to the Vatican itself. Perhaps Weakland didn’t want to
be the one to besmirch the reputation of a gay priest. What or whom
exactly was Weakland in charge of if he himself couldn’t effect such a
change ?
No excuse, indeed. Yet:
1. It seems that in Ireland, not only has there been a problem with abusive priests, there has been a problem with abusive nuns. Why do we not read as much about the nuns, particularly since (in my place and time) a number of nuns from Ireland came to teach in American Catholic schools? Could it be that some of Ireland’s problematic nuns were being sent here, and that some of the teen jokes about nuns were true? Just speculating, of course. But the kind of place that is down on priests might be down on “the patriarchy” in general, and might be inclined to avoid mentioning the subject if women are the problem.
2. In California, some 10 to 15 years ago, a fake monk (or friar) came around to one of the Catholic schools, dressed in style and acting pious. But he was a child molester, faking it, not clerical. The school let him take some boys on a “pilgrimage” away from the area. He was nabbed when the boys complained. Believe it or not, he has recently re-appeared (apparently no longer as a fake religious) and has again been reported for molesting elsewhere in California. When he was caught the first time, the school was asked why it did not check his background. Could anyone showing up in the proper attire pass himself off? It seems that at the time, the answer was yes! Nowadays, anyone seeking to sweep the floor will be fingerprinted first.
3. The Roman Catholic church often complains that there is a priest shortage. Have you ever seen priests offer daily Mass to a small handful of elderly, retired attendees? Or, have you ever seen a priest offer a Mass entirely alone, in a side-chapel of some larger building? The Church notes that many persons who are not RC (and a few who are) seem to think that consecration is just a magic trick. Maybe the RC church needs to re-think the issue.
4. A local priest, who had entered priesthood in mid-life, turned out to be a closet gay (he came out of the closet). He wasn’t a molester or anything like that. But my dearly departed mother, of southern Italian ancestry, opined that priests were supposed to be problematical in one way or another, according to some political tradition of southern Italy.
“failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church”
REALLY???? Do there think so? Gosh!! I hope the church is not embarrassed. Heanens no!
More false prophets. That is all. Plain and simple as that. This is not hard folks. St. John tells us that we are EITHER children of God OR children of the devil. Why are we looking for gray areas?
bl
The [url=http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/d3_en.htm]Vatican Information Service has offered a response to the New York Times[/url]. While it may not be sufficient for those who take delight in bashing the Roman Catholic Church, it does provide a quite reasonable explanation for the course of events:
[b][i] “In the late 1990s, after over two decades had passed since the abuse had been reported to diocesan officials and the police, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was presented for the first time with the question of how to treat the Murphy case canonically. The Congregation was informed of the matter because it involved solicitation in the confessional, which is a violation of the Sacrament of Penance. It is important to note that the canonical question presented to the Congregation was unrelated to any potential civil or criminal proceedings against Fr. Murphy.
“In such cases, the Code of Canon Law does not envision automatic penalties, but recommends that a judgment be made not excluding even the greatest ecclesiastical penalty of dismissal from the clerical state. In light of the facts that Fr. Murphy was elderly and in very poor health, and that he was living in seclusion and no allegations of abuse had been reported in over 20 years, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested that the archbishop of Milwaukee give consideration to addressing the situation by, for example, restricting Fr. Murphy’s public ministry and requiring that Fr. Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts. Fr. Murphy died approximately four months later, without further incident”. [/b][/i]
While there is no excuse for the abuse that has occurred, it must also be noted that the Catholic Church has done a great deal to address this issue. No institution is immune. The Episcopal Diocese of Texas is still reeling from the cover-up of sexual molestations at St. Stephens school. In the DC Metro area there seems to be at least one coach every year found to be sexually molesting one of his athletes.
Teatime,
Who excused him?
It seems to me that some of you are making a category mistake here. When someone raises an objection to the gaping holes in the NYT coverage, you say, “There’s no excuse!”
And you’re right, of course: there is no excuse … for child molestation. But I don’t hear anyone on this list making excuses for child molesters or those who cover up for them. I hear them offering excuses for why things were handled the way they were. Paula enumerates the facts succinctly: the abuse happened forty years ago, came to light twenty years later, the police couldn’t make a case, the priest was inhibited, there had been no more allegations of abuse, he was living in solitude, and he was on his deathbed. I think those are all pretty good reasons for why he wasn’t *defrocked.*
That’s the second category mistake people are making. ‘Not being defrocked’ is not the same thing as ‘not being dealt with.’ It sounds like he was dealt with, though not to everyone’s satisfaction. But the NYT is upset that he wasn’t defrocked, when I’m willing to bet most readers of the NYT don’t know what defrocking is or what the ramifications of it would be for a man four months from death.
>>>That’s the second category mistake people are making. ‘Not being
defrocked’ is not the same thing as ‘not being dealt with.’
In book it definitely is. If the vicar [edit], or whatever you want to call him, is piddling little boys, and he is not at the very least defrocked, he is not being dealt with. Christ, if I remember described a far more drastic form of punishment for those who do this kinda thing. Millstone would be an easy out.
I for one am not accusing anyone here for defending molesters. I am saying that when you call your church the One Infallible VISIBLE Church, then you had better make the molesters INVISIBLE.
Either the church is invisible and made up of all christians, as the protestants claim. Or else it is VISIBLE to the eye, and the bureaucracy, the bishops, and the priests ARE the church. Either a priest is the very visible presence of the Church and Christ, or he is not. You can have it one way or the other. You cant have it both.
Jesus doesn’t molest little boys, and his infallible church does not deal with molesting priests to other child-friendly dioceses. See my problem?
[Edited in accordance with commenter’s clarification – Elf]
In my haste I didn’t edit my grammar and it lacks a lot, but I think my disdain still seeps through sufficiently.
Elves, I plead you take note of #14. He is saying that Benedict XVI molested children. I call foul.
[Thanks Paula – comment edited]
#12
Anyone who found some “excuse” for why he wasn’t stopped/defrocked/arrested. Why? Because that is exactly the type of behavior that allowed him and Rudy Kos and many others to continue what they were doing. Sins of omission can be just as grievous as sins of commission.
Nonsense, Paula. No one made that claim. I meant of course the Vicar that represents Christ (The priest, not the Pope). I’m sorry you feel that censorship is the way you need to deal with what has been an interesting conversation.
Defrocking 40 years after the events when no abuse accusations had been made in over 20 years would not have done anything to protect the children.
The responsibility to make sure he did not violate his discipline forbidding public ministry was the diocese’s. I don’t know why Murphy was permitted to go outside of the diocese but that decision is not under the Vatican authority. If the bishops involved had kept him close to home I doubt the violation would have occurred. Any defrocking (a noncanonical term by the way) should have been requested when the allegations first came to light.
Paula, I’m a christian and generally pro Roman Catholic. I actually defend them around my atheist and noncatholic friends. But the response and defense of the church’s actions disgusts me. Believe me when I say that the Church’s response to these minor incidents is turning thousands away from Christ.
Justin,
I was unaware that you did not know the Pope is called the Vicar of Christ.
Justin, No Catholic here defends the abuse. What we are defending in this case is the attempt by the NYT to lay this at the Pope’s feet.
I agree the priest should have been removed from the priesthood when there was a very real danger of him coming in contact with children again. I also have to wonder why it took 20 years for anyone to notice this priest was in public ministry contrary to the discipline he received.
And why no finger pointing to Weakland by the NYT? Could it be his being an active homosexual and a well known dissenter to Church teaching make him a media darling?
It seems to me, Justinmartyr, in reading through your post, that your real beef is less with the fact of molestation, and more with the Catholic claim of ecclesial infallibility. No Catholic–whether pope or theologian–claims that the infallibility of the Church translates to perfect moral behavior among it’s members. Again, you’ve made a category error: what’s at issue in infallibility is the teaching authority of the Church. You, however, are talking about sin. A person or institution can be factually correct and at the same time morally wrong.
What I hear you saying is that an institution which claims to be right on some matters must be morally perfect. But the correctness of the Church’s teaching doesn’t rise or fall on the saintliness or sinfulness of its members. What some priests have done in molesting children, and some bishops have done in covering it up, is wrong. But it doesn’t put a dint in the correctness of the Church’s claims. It might make the Church less credible, but–again–credibility and correctness are not the same. Peter may have seemed less credible for having denied Jesus, but he was no less correct when he called him the Christ.
Justinmartyr: P.S.: I’m touched to read that you defend Catholics to atheists and non-Catholics. That’s very kind. Sometimes, it feels like the whole world is coming down around us, from Dan Brown to biased coverage in newspapers. Thank you.
[Comment deleted by Elf. We encourage commenters to remain focused on the thread topic which is the NYT article and its contents, and avoid ad hominem comments on this emotive subject – Thank you – Elf]
Others, above, have noted that there may be wide misunderstanding of what “defrocking” entails. There is a Wikipedia article on the subject. Both RC and Anglican practices are mentioned, among others.
At least in the case of RC, the situation can arise in which a “defrocked” priest’s (unauthorized) sacraments are still spiritually valid.
I was defrocked, literally! No, I wasn’t a priest. One day, when I reached into the closet where the common choir robes were kept, I inadvertently selected one that some middle-aged woman regarded as her personal robe. She arrived toward the end of pre-Mass practice, and insisted that I remove “her” robe.
Here’s an excellent analysis:
http://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/will-ratzingers-past-trump-benedicts-present
Teatime. Good article.
#17,
Agree. But the topic in question is the Pope’s actions and decisions. So I’m wondering how declining to defrock this particular priest in these particular circumstances amounts to excusing him.
Anne,
It allows him to retain his stature so he could go and sin some more. Lest you think that isn’t possible or a problem, I know of two cases in Texas in which it happened. The first involved a priest who was the director of vocations. He was found to be abusing young men and boys he was grooming for the seminary. The man was removed from his office but not defrocked. He was later seen in Mexico working as a priest, which he was able to do because he had not been laicized.
Another involved a priest on loan from Nigeria. Three women went to the police with evidence that he sexually abused them and he was indicted. When they went to arrest him, they found he had disappeared. The bishop said he had no knowledge of where he was and he remains a fugitive from justice. He was later found to be serving as a priest back in Nigeria and, as far as I know, they are not cooperating with extradition.
By not removing these cancers from the priesthood, which only the Vatican can do, are they not excusing the behavior in some way? Not removing them allows them to simply move on to another place, another country, where their deeds are not known.
Teatime,
I see your point. But if a priest is not laicized, it means he has to be under obedience/answerable to a bishop. Defrock him and send him packing, and he’s free to take his pathology anywhere.
I think what you’re saying gets at the heart of the discussion, teatime. As I understand it–correct me if I’m wrong–the reason this *particular* priest was not defrocked was because he was on his deathbed. There wasn’t going to be any “go and sin some more,” because he couldn’t go anywhere.