The Vatican has attacked the media over charges that the Pope failed to act against a US priest accused of abusing up to 200 deaf boys two decades ago.
A Vatican newspaper editorial said the claims were an “ignoble” attack on the Pope and that there was no “cover-up”.
Archbishops had complained about Fr Lawrence Murphy in 1996 to a Vatican office led by the future pope, but apparently received no response.
Read it all–this story was the top one on BBC World news this morning at 6:00 EST.
The “media” that attacks the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope is also the same “media” that approvingly sensationalizes under-age sexual activity.
It is also the same “media” that approvingly reports on the distribution of condoms and birth control pills to underage children in the schools and which enthusiastically supports explicit sex education of children, even in the elementary school grades.
What hypocrisy!!!
Interesting article demonstrating that appears to demonstrate the less than honest way the story is being reported….
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0329.htm
While not in the RCC, I have no confidence in the MSM to report this honestly, much less accurately. At least the BBC includes this: “police at the time investigated the allegations, but did not bring charges.”
Sorry for garbled sentence above – trying to multi-task and obviously failing miserably! 😉
@AnglicanFirst I’ve been recently thinking the same thing. Either children are able to maturely make that decision or they aren’t. If they are then this is no worse than a boss having relations with an office worker (which is bad, but not a huge crime). If they aren’t then the whole approach to sex-ed in schools is flawed.
“Vatican attacks media…”
Even if this is not true, I’m happy to read this headline.
As a “Roman” I’m completely sick about “dialogue with the world”.
I prefer the good old days, when we still believed we have enemies.
And I’m not talking about Anglicans as enemies, I don’t consider them to be so.
John C. B., please tell us you are not serious.
OK, I’m NO supporter of providing contraceptives to youth but COME ON, #1 and 5!!!!!!!! You CANNOT equate young people becoming involved and deciding to have sex with EACH OTHER to a person in authority having sex with a person who is much younger and in a dependent position. These are VERY separate issues.
Part of the determination of whether sex is consensual or coerced is based on the age difference and balance of power in the relationship. In most of the sex abuse cases, it’s been noted that the priests DELIBERATELY targeted youth who had social problems, came from homes with no father, and were disadvantaged. They set themselves up as good friends and mentors to these youth to get them to trust, admire and want to please the priests. In short, they used their status to coerce minors.
And if you don’t think it’s a problem for a boss to coerce an underling in a similar manner (even though the underling is an adult), then I guess you wouldn’t find much wrong with the priests’ actions, sigh.
Occasional Reader and Teatime: I think what the others are saying is that the *media* acts as though the age of consent for sex should be abolished, but go into high dudgeon when people take them up on it. It’s something that has occurred to me too … the media regularly make kids into sex objects, objectify them for the amusement of adults, present every type of relationship as equally okay, but go into hysterics when someone actually takes them up on their Brave New World.
Mark my words: there will come a time–soon and very soon–when the age of sexual consent will be abolished and be replaced with an age of consent for baptism. Both of these things are already being discussed publicly.
You ‘ve got it Anglicanum.
Sex is not for children under any conditions, whether its an adult in authority sexually using a child or two children sexually using each other.
Underage children can become sexual predators too.
And THIS is the church that TAC and the ACA want to get into bed with – no sex you understand, just shared clergy and common interests! To pursue communion with Rome now is both shameful and hypocritical. Rome’s problems are systemic, ancient, irreversible and unavoidable as long as Rome demands priestly celibacy. (After all no one who knew Roman priests is surprised at the scandal. It has always been a vague, but common knowledge.) And we – I’m embarrassed to say I am part of the ACA – want to share priests with them?
It is hard to doubt that our archbishop, once a RC, will say and do anything so that he can recross the Tiber – but under cover of darkness.
This gives new and bitter meaning to “Lie down with dogs, rise with fleas.” THESE fleas carry the plague. Larry
Larry, are you saying that, since the RCC has sinful clergy (and sinful laity), it’s teachings can’t be true? You know, of course, that being correct and being sinless are two different things. What church could you find that would fit both of these stipulations? We know that all men sin and fall short of the glory of God, but we’re also told we can know the Truth. It would seem to me that we *won’t* find a sinless Church, but we *can* find a Church that teaches the Truth, despite it’s sinfulness.
Now, you may not believe that the Church Which Tells the Truth is the RCC, and that’s a perfectly respectable theological position to hold. But I don’t know that we can make that determination based on the shameful problems coming to light. I mean, if we could, then we’d have had to discount the witness of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, Solomon …
No, Anglicanum, I am not saying that its long standing internal corruption invalidates the church’s grasp of the truth. By no means. But in the real world, the character of those who speak and the substance of what they say are interrelated, for an habitual liar may speak the gospel truth for once, and careful men will ask, ” Why should we believe him?” In short, it is a case of crying wolf too often, if I may use that analogy.
What’s more important, Anglicanum, is the ease with which the dirt on the priest’s robe rubs off on all who touch it. We are being given a truly sordid tale of homosexual escapades, and we are being told, again and again, of RC leaders who hide and falsify. Is this the company you would wish to keep? And should the ACA wish to keep such company? Knowing what you know now, would you allow your 12 year old son to be an acolyte for a RC priest who has come to preach in your church – come, because intercommunion permits and encourages it? Let us forget abstract Truth for a minute and talk about character and the truth of this world: The RC priesthood is full to the brim with the worst character, and no one can tell (until too late) what this PARTICULAR character is capable of, what his intentions are. In the real world, there is no substitute for good character: We learn to trust the truth when we have just cause to trust the speaker. We trust Christ because his life and character are his bona fides. WE say of him that he talked the talk and walked the walk – if you will pardon this banality. Larry
#8 Notice I did not say that it is the same as normal consensual relationships. It is, however, very similar to the boss-employee situation where there is someone in a place of power exploiting that power (this is with the assumption that a teenager can and/or should be making responsible decisions in favor of having sex, an assumption I don’t agree with.)
I definitely agree with you that these cannot be equated, but they can’t be equated precisely because I don’t believe children have the necessary maturity to be making such a decision. If they DO have that maturity, then there is no difference in situation between a 35 year old priest and a 15 year old kid then there would be between, say, a 55 year old boss and a 25 year old employee. The case is still wrong, but not on the same level as pedophilia because there is the added assumption that the 25 year old has the maturity to make his/her own decisions about sexuality. You can’t get around the fact that adding this assumption to children makes the cases the same. Either they are or are not mature enough to make the decision, and if they are the abuse of power case is the same as similar abuses in the “adult” world.
Pedophilia is definitely worse than normal abuses of power referenced above, but this is precisely because the child doesn’t have the maturity to be making such decisions and so the power issue trumps everything. But this is my point, a child does not have the maturity to be making such decisions, and so we need to be teaching them THAT.